The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a negative asylum recommendation, finding that the applicant’s complaints could be dealt with on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
M. I. was 13 when she arrived in Ireland unaccompanied from Nigeria on 26 April 2007. Her mother and two sisters had arrived in 2006 and claimed asylum. On 28 August 2007, her mother applied for asylum on M. I.’s behalf. Following an interview on 26 September, the Refugee Applications Commissioner issued a report the next day recommending that she not be declared a refugee.
The applicant sought leave to challenge the report, including an order to quash it. Her proposed grounds included that the report was incomplete and contained errors, that its language showed bias, that credibility concerns and country information had not been put to her for comment, and that the assessment of country information and state protection was inadequate. She also alleged that relevant statutory and regulatory matters had not been considered and that the reasons were insufficient.
The report disbelieved the account underlying her fear of persecution. The judgment records that she and family members were said to have been abducted by the Oodua Peoples Congress or a related gang, Oriyomi; the applicant said she had been kidnapped, tortured and enslaved, and that her brother had been murdered. The report cited her inability to give details including when the abduction happened, how long she was held, or how and when she escaped. It also considered, as a secondary basis, whether police and legal protection would be available in Nigeria if the account were accepted.
Mr Justice Cooke said judicial review of a section 13 report before the statutory appeal should be reserved for rare and exceptional cases, such as where a material illegality could not suitably be corrected on appeal or would have continuing adverse consequences. He held that the grounds raised here were suitable for the appeal process, which could include an oral hearing and a fresh assessment of the applicant’s account.
The judge accepted that part of a sentence was missing from paragraph 3 of the report, but found the omission immaterial because the claimed persecution was set out more fully elsewhere and the paragraph contained no findings. He said the complaints about language and fair procedures could, if necessary, be addressed on appeal. Country information and the state-protection issue could also be considered there. He rejected the general complaint about reasons, finding it clear why the negative recommendation had been made.
The court refused leave. It did not quash the report or determine the asylum claim; the judgment left the applicant to pursue the statutory appeal route.