The High Court refused substantive relief in a judicial review brought for an anonymised child challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of her asylum appeal. The court held that the Tribunal’s internal relocation finding could not stand because it had not adequately considered conditions in Karachi, but that defect was severable from the rejection of the claim.
The applicant, identified as M. N., was described in the judgment as a five-year-old girl born in Ireland and of Pakistani nationality. Her claim, brought through her father and next friend R. N., relied on her parents’ fear of retribution by the mother’s family after the parents married against their families’ wishes.
The child’s asylum application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in July 2011. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected her appeal in November 2011. The judicial review proceedings were brought after the deadline. With the respondents’ consent, the judge extended time to the date the application was made.
The judge rejected arguments that the Tribunal could not consider the parents’ circumstances without a substantive decision on their withdrawn asylum applications, and that it could not make fresh credibility findings without referring matters back to the Commissioner. The judge said the Tribunal could make new credibility findings, particularly where it heard new evidence.
On internal relocation, the judge agreed with earlier High Court approaches requiring a full assessment when relocation is considered, including where it is considered on the assumption that the claim is otherwise well-founded. The Tribunal had referred to Karachi’s population but had not sufficiently considered general conditions there, including the risk of honour killings or tribal persecution affecting women, girls or children. The judge held that this relocation finding could not stand, but was severable from the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim based on credibility.
The judge also rejected complaints about the handling of country-of-origin information and whether credibility concerns had been put to the father. The father’s account had been comprehensively rejected by the Tribunal, and the judge considered the child’s claim heavily dependent on that evidence. The judge said the applicant’s lawyers could have called the mother if they considered her evidence appropriate.
The court granted leave in accordance with the statement of grounds but refused the substantive relief. It said it would hear any consequential applications, provided advance written particulars were given to the other party.