The High Court dismissed an application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian infant’s claim for refugee status. Mr Justice Eagar ruled on 9 December 2014 that the applicant had not established substantial grounds for judicial review.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as D.A., was born in Ireland in 2010. His mother and next friend, R.A., applied for asylum on his behalf. She said his claim was linked to her own and that he faced forced facial scarification by his father’s family if returned to Nigeria. She also said she feared for two older children living with her mother in Nigeria and could not safely relocate within the country.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the infant’s application in February 2011, finding that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Commissioner considered that state protection had not been ruled out and that the mother could relocate with the child elsewhere in Nigeria. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal later dismissed the appeal, relying in part on the rejection of the mother’s separate refugee claim, which she had not challenged by judicial review.
The tribunal member questioned why the father’s family would learn of the child’s birth in Ireland and noted that the mother’s account on this point appeared internally inconsistent. The tribunal also observed that the mother’s two older children had remained in Nigeria without being marked, despite the father’s absence. Country of origin information described facial marking as a declining practice, increasingly restricted to rural areas; the tribunal concluded that its existence did not establish that this child would face it.
In court, the applicant’s counsel argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained its treatment of the country information, assessed the child’s best interests, or considered the claim individually. Counsel also argued that a different tribunal member should have considered the child’s case. The respondent disputed that some of these issues had been raised in the formal grounds. The judge said the grounds were generic but considered the merits of the arguments presented.
The court accepted the respondent’s submission on the child’s best interests. It held that the tribunal had made several findings sufficient to support its decision and that judicial review examines the decision-making process rather than rehearing the merits. Mr Justice Eagar found the tribunal’s conclusions on scarification and internal relocation rational, reasonable and in accordance with law. The court dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review; it did not decide the refugee claim afresh.