The High Court has rejected a mother and daughter’s judicial review challenge to decisions refusing them refugee status, ruling that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s assessments were lawful and adequately reasoned.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh delivered the substantive judgment on 27 June 2013. The applicants sought orders of certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s decisions. The court refused those orders and any other relief claimed. The ruling concerned the validity of the asylum decisions; it did not grant leave to remain in Ireland. An earlier attempt to add a claim seeking leave to remain until the daughter reached adulthood had been refused as outside the issues in the proceedings.
The applicants, both Nigerian nationals, are a mother and her minor daughter. The Tribunal had rejected the mother’s claim on credibility grounds, including concerns about the timing of the female genital mutilation (FGM) she said she had suffered and her account of travelling to Ireland. It also considered whether state protection or relocation within Nigeria could reduce the risk. The daughter’s separate claim was rejected after the Tribunal considered country information, the family’s opposition to FGM, the practice’s legal status in their home state, and the possibility of relocation with her mother.
The mother argued that the Tribunal had misstated or omitted evidence and mishandled credibility, country information, state protection and her account of travel. She also said it failed to address her submissions and the persecution she said she suffered through rape and sexual abuse. The respondents disputed those claims. The judge found no flaw in the way the Tribunal handled the evidence and concluded that the credibility findings were a rational basis for rejecting her appeal.
For the daughter, the challenge included arguments that the Tribunal had overlooked the possibility that someone other than her father could carry out FGM, shortcomings in state protection, and evidence about threats and relocation. The judge held that the Tribunal had given rational reasons for finding she would not be at risk, including its consideration of the views of her mother and grandmother, the law in the relevant state and relocation. He also said the applicants had not discharged the onus of showing that Nigeria could not offer protection.
The High Court concluded that both Tribunal decisions represented a fair assessment of the evidence. It found no legal fault in the treatment of country information, protection or internal relocation, and rejected the applications for certiorari and other relief.