The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision affirming the rejection of his application for refugee status.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K. O. O., is a Nigerian national. He said he feared being killed by members of his community after opposing female genital mutilation (FGM) of his daughters. The judgment recounts that his first daughter was subjected to FGM as an infant and developed serious infections. When his wife became pregnant with their second daughter, they moved from their village in Delta State to Port Harcourt. His wife later travelled to Ireland, where the second child was born.
The applicant remained in Port Harcourt for about two years. He said that in April 2006, after encountering a member of his community, people from the community destroyed the house where he was staying while he was away. He did not report the incident to police, believing they would not intervene. He arrived in Ireland on 7 May 2006 and applied for asylum. The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the application, and the Tribunal rejected his appeal after an oral hearing on 3 October 2006. The Tribunal’s decision was based on its finding that state protection might reasonably have been available in Nigeria.
In seeking leave, the applicant challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of country information, its reference to an apparent FGM ban in Delta State, its use of a UK Home Office guidance note, and its assessment of state protection and the burden of proof. The respondents disputed those claims.
The court said the country information did not clearly establish whether FGM was banned in Delta State. It also held that any error on that point would not be fatal, because the issue was not central to the applicant’s claim. Although the Tribunal had focused considerably on FGM, the court found it had also identified and adequately addressed his core fear of persecution by community members. It accepted the Tribunal’s use of the UK guidance note and found that the absence of an express reference to a 2005 Home Office report did not show the report had been disregarded.
On state protection, the court held that the Tribunal had applied the correct test: whether protection might reasonably have been forthcoming. It noted that the applicant had lived safely in Nigeria for two years after his wife left and had not complained to police after the reported house destruction. The court concluded that no clear or compelling evidence showed the Nigerian state was unable to protect him.
The court was not satisfied that substantial grounds for review had been established and refused leave. It did not grant judicial review or quash the Tribunal’s decision.