The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Applications Commissioner decision refusing her refugee claim, finding she had not shown substantial grounds to quash it. The judgment said the appropriate course was the statutory appeal process.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as V. C. E., said she was from Edo State in Nigeria and had fled after village elders selected her for female genital mutilation (FGM). She said she feared being forced to undergo the procedure or being killed if she returned. Her son was born in Ireland in April 2006.
At her July 2006 interview, she was asked whether she could avoid the alleged risk by relocating within Nigeria, including to Lagos, or by seeking help from organisations opposing FGM. She said the elders would find her anywhere in the country, that police could not be relied on, and that non-governmental organisations would not protect her.
The Commissioner’s report concluded that her claim that protection and internal relocation were unavailable appeared to conflict with country information, and that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant sought leave to quash that decision, arguing that the Commissioner had to identify a specific safe place for her to relocate. A separate written-submissions argument that information relied on by the Commissioner had not been put to her was not pursued at the hearing.
Justice Clark said the Commissioner had not found that the applicant had established persecution or that her account was credible. The report considered whether her claimed risk, if established, would amount to persecution, then assessed the well-foundedness of her claim, including relocation and other statutory factors.
The judge held that relocation had to be assessed as part of the overall refugee determination, taking account of the applicant’s personal circumstances and conditions in the proposed destination. She found that the interview addressed relocation and referred to recognised country reports on FGM in Nigeria. The process complied with the spirit and letter of the UNHCR guidelines, and the applicant had not made out an arguable case for substantial grounds to quash the decision.
The court also cited prior decisions emphasising the relevance of the statutory appeal route when a claimant challenges an ORAC decision. It refused the application. The ruling concerned leave to pursue judicial review; it did not grant refugee status or determine an appeal on the underlying claim.