The High Court has refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an asylum claim made on behalf of a minor born in Ireland. The court found no basis to quash the decision, which rested principally on findings about the credibility of the child’s mother.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh on 1 April 2014, concerned M. S. O., suing through her mother and next friend, O. O. The mother’s account included fears linked to her conversion from Islam to Christianity, her family’s response to her pregnancies, and the possibility that the father of her first child would harm her. The judgment records those matters as her account, not as findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal had questioned the mother’s knowledge of Islam despite her account that she grew up in a strongly Muslim family and attended a Muslim secondary school. It also found her account less credible because she initially could not provide the name of her brother’s girlfriend, with whom she said she had lived for two months and who helped her travel to Ireland. The applicant argued that these credibility findings were irrational or based on conjecture. The High Court rejected those challenges, saying the Tribunal could assess the answers given and was not required to speculate about other explanations that had not been raised at the hearing.
The court accepted that the child’s claim was not identical to her mother’s. It found, however, that the Tribunal had not rejected the child’s case solely because the mother’s earlier asylum claim had failed: the decision assessed evidence given for the child and limited the overlap to claims shared with the mother. The court also rejected a challenge concerning alleged consequences for children born outside marriage, finding the cited Amina Lawal case concerned possible consequences for women in states applying Sharia law, rather than establishing difficulties for children.
The Tribunal had also concluded that internal relocation within Nigeria would be reasonable if the claim were otherwise well founded. The High Court found that assessment adequate, noting the Tribunal’s references to women’s support organisations, protection structures and possible relocation areas. It said the credibility findings were independently fatal to the claim, so even a flaw in the relocation assessment would not make the decision susceptible to certiorari.
A complaint about language and interpretation at the oral hearing was not pleaded and was raised only in written submissions. The court also said the papers showed the mother had good English and had made no real complaint about language difficulties during the process. It refused leave to seek judicial review.