The High Court refused a minor’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a recommendation that she not be declared a refugee, finding no serious breach of fair procedures.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T. T.-I., was born in Ireland to Nigerian parents. Her mother applied for refugee status on her behalf. She said the child could face female genital mutilation, a traditional initiation and human sacrifice if returned to Nigeria. The mother also told the Commissioner that she had been forcibly circumcised by her husband’s family and that they had said her daughter would also be circumcised.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner accepted that the child faced a serious risk of mutilation and tribal marking in the family’s home community, but concluded that relocation elsewhere in Nigeria was available. The Commissioner rejected the mother’s explanation that her husband’s family was “all over Nigeria”.
The applicant argued that the Commissioner relied on undisclosed country information, failed to assess whether state protection was adequate, and did not properly consider evidence of past persecution or the reasonableness of relocation. She also challenged a summary of her evidence about human sacrifice.
Mr Justice McMahon held that the substance of the country information had been put to the mother during her interview. She had been asked about state protection, relocation and help from non-governmental organisations, and had an opportunity to respond. The judge said the Commissioner was not required in this case to provide the reports themselves for a detailed response.
The judge also found that the mother had previously lived in Lagos and that no financial, logistical or other hardship preventing relocation had been raised. He said the Commissioner was not required to examine every possible destination in Nigeria in the circumstances. He found no indication that the Commissioner had rejected the mother’s evidence of past persecution; relocation was the principal reason for the recommendation.
The court considered the disputed summary of the mother’s evidence to be somewhat inaccurate, but not significant to the overall assessment or capable of contaminating the process. It refused leave to seek judicial review. The judge noted that most complaints concerned the outcome and could be addressed at an appeal involving a full oral rehearing. The ruling was a refusal of leave, not a final determination of refugee status.