The High Court has refused a judicial review application challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision on an asylum appeal brought for a child born in Ireland to Nigerian parents.
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2015, Mr Justice Eagar refused to quash the Tribunal’s decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. The court also refused the requested order sending the appeal back for a fresh decision by a different Tribunal member.
The child’s mother, identified as F.A., brought the case on her daughter’s behalf. The mother’s account, as set out in the judgment, was that she had been trafficked and forced into prostitution in Nigeria, and feared her aunt would harm her and her daughter if they returned. She also said she had been raped by police when seeking help. These were claims described in the proceedings, not findings made by the High Court.
The Tribunal had considered the child’s claim alongside her mother’s circumstances, concluding that the child had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a lack of state protection in Nigeria. It referred to Nigerian anti-trafficking measures and support services, including the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons. The Tribunal also considered whether the family could relocate within Nigeria. The child’s representatives argued that the assessment failed to address the family’s circumstances and the practical limits of available protection. They also raised concerns about risks in Sierra Leone.
The State argued that the challenge to the state-protection finding had not been properly pleaded and that the Tribunal had conducted a full oral appeal. The judgment records that the child’s appeal was heard on 16 March 2011 and the Tribunal decision was made on 6 April 2011. The proceedings began on 13 May 2011. The court granted an extension of time, noting that the State had not contested its necessity.
Justice Eagar found that the complaints about the pleadings did not justify rejecting the case. However, he concluded that the child had been afforded fair procedures, and that the Tribunal had acted reasonably and without exceeding its jurisdiction. The judicial review was refused. The court did not make a fresh determination of the asylum claim.