The High Court has refused an application for judicial review challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of an anonymised woman’s asylum appeal. The court found no basis for the complaint that the tribunal mishandled information from the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) identifying her as a potential victim of human trafficking.
The case concerned a negative determination by the tribunal following an earlier negative recommendation from the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The woman said she had come to Ireland from Nigeria in December 2010 after being offered work minding children. She alleged that she was told she owed €40,000 for the journey, later faced pressure to work as a prostitute, and was threatened with harm to her children if she refused.
The asylum decision-maker had made adverse credibility findings, including concerns about her inability to name children she said she had minded and details of her travel to Ireland. A finding that her claim had no or minimal basis meant her tribunal appeal proceeded on the papers, without oral evidence.
During the asylum process, the GNIB identified her as a “potential victim” of trafficking for the purposes of a criminal investigation. Her solicitors informed the tribunal. The tribunal decision mentioned that correspondence but did not discuss it further. In the judicial review proceedings, she argued that the tribunal’s credibility findings were based on conjecture and peripheral matters, and that the trafficking information had not been properly considered, particularly given the absence of an oral appeal.
Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh found that the tribunal had expressly identified the information and had not ignored it. He said the GNIB form did not corroborate the asylum claim; it showed that the woman had told the asylum authorities and Gardaí the same account. Her counsel argued that the tribunal should have asked the asylum commissioner to investigate what had become of the Garda inquiry. The judge held there was no legal obligation on the tribunal to make that inquiry.
The court had adjourned the judicial review proceedings to allow enquiries into the Garda investigation. In a later affidavit, the woman said she had cooperated and believed the investigation had not concluded, with her last contact with a Garda at her home around June or July 2013. The judge inferred that the investigation had not progressed since then and that an inquiry by the tribunal would have produced no useful information or corroboration. He rejected the complaint about the tribunal’s treatment of the GNIB information and refused the judicial review application.
The ruling addressed the judicial review challenge. It did not determine the underlying trafficking allegation.