The High Court proposed quashing a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum claim by a minor and remitting the application for fresh consideration, after finding that the Tribunal had not adequately assessed her risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) if returned to Nigeria.
In a judgment delivered on 7 October 2011, Mr Justice Hogan said the risk to a young Yoruba girl had to be considered in its own right, even if the mother’s allegations of threats by the girl’s grandfather were rejected. The judgment says the Tribunal had not sufficiently addressed that risk or the limited effectiveness of state protection against FGM.
The applicant was described in the judgment as a six-year-old girl, born in Ireland in 2005 to Nigerian parents, and not an Irish national. Her mother maintained that the girl would face FGM from the father’s family if returned to Nigeria. She also alleged that her father-in-law, described as a radical Imam, had threatened and detained her and her husband, and threatened kidnapping and FGM. The mother said her other three children were living on an isolated farm with their grand-aunt.
The Tribunal had found an element of implausibility in the alleged threats, noting that the mother had remained alive for 15 years without seeking state protection. Hogan J considered the allegations generic and lacking particulars, including details of the alleged kidnappings, and held that the Tribunal was entitled to reject the mother’s evidence on that issue. The court’s concern about FGM did not depend on accepting those allegations.
The judgment cited country information indicating that FGM prevalence varied by region, tribe and age, and that some 60% of Yoruba females had undergone the practice, principally in early childhood. It also referred to findings that federal police generally treated FGM as a family matter and rarely intervened. While the mother’s opposition to FGM could reduce the risk, Hogan J said young Yoruba girls remained a high-risk group and could not realistically be regarded as having effective police protection in such cases.
Hogan J said the Tribunal member had not sufficiently identified and assessed the risk to the applicant based on her age and Yoruba background. In the absence of a balanced assessment, he said, the State’s constitutional duty to protect her person had not been adequately discharged.
The judgment states that Hogan J “would propose to quash” the Tribunal decision and remit the application for fresh consideration in light of the judgment. It does not record a final formal order in the supplied text.