The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian child’s appeal for refugee status, finding that the decision did not clearly explain why her claim was refused and did not properly assess whether internal relocation was reasonable in light of her circumstances.
The case was brought by T. I., a minor suing through her mother and next friend, P. I. The child sought certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that she not be declared a refugee. The Tribunal had dismissed her appeal in 2010.
The child’s mother claimed that her husband’s family in Nigeria wanted the child sacrificed at a shrine and that she could also face female genital mutilation (FGM), kidnapping or trafficking. The Tribunal’s decision discussed FGM in Nigeria and the possibility of moving elsewhere in the country, including Lagos. It also questioned the mother’s credibility and the relationship between the claimed risk of FGM and the alleged threat of ritual sacrifice.
The respondents argued that the claim had been rejected on credibility grounds and that relocation had been raised as part of that assessment. They also disputed that the child’s medical difficulties had been put forward as a reason relocation was unreasonable.
Justice Faherty said the Tribunal’s reasoning left it open to question whether the claim had been rejected on credibility grounds, because internal relocation was available, or on both bases. That lack of clarity was enough to invalidate the decision. The judge also found that the mother’s having advanced more than one fear for the child did not, by itself, adequately dispose of the FGM claim. The Tribunal had cited information that FGM affected a significant share of Nigerian women, but had not shown how it assessed the claimed risk to this child.
On relocation, the judgment said the Tribunal had identified Lagos as an option without sufficiently examining the child’s personal circumstances. The record included evidence of a speech disability and hearing difficulties, as well as medical reports. The judge held that those matters required consideration in deciding whether it would be reasonable to expect the child to relocate.
In the telescoped judicial review proceedings, the High Court granted relief, quashed the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal for a new hearing before a different member. The court did not determine the child’s refugee claim or declare her a refugee.