The High Court has quashed Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions refusing refugee status to a Nigerian mother and her daughter, finding that key parts of the assessments lacked adequate reasons and did not properly address relevant country information and personal circumstances.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2017, Ms Justice Faherty granted certiorari quashing both decisions and remitted the matters for de novo consideration by a different member of the Tribunal. The court also granted a short extension of time for the judicial review proceedings. It did not decide whether either applicant qualified for refugee status.
The mother said she faced violence from her own family and her husband’s family after marrying across religious lines. She said her husband disappeared in December 2006 and that she had been assaulted by her mother-in-law. Her daughter’s claim included a fear of harm linked to the disputed marriage, as well as fears of female genital mutilation and tribal markings. These were claims advanced by the applicants, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal had relied on police inquiries into the husband’s disappearance to support its conclusion that state protection would be available to the mother. But the High Court found that the Tribunal had not addressed country information submitted on the mother’s appeal describing a lack of police protection in domestic violence cases. It also found that the Tribunal had not conclusively resolved credibility concerns about whether the mother reported an alleged assault by her mother-in-law. The court therefore held that the state-protection finding could not stand.
The Tribunal’s internal-relocation reasoning was also insufficient for both applicants. It did not identify a specific part of Nigeria where either could safely relocate or assess their personal circumstances as required by the applicable regulations. For the mother, the court noted that the decision did not address her circumstances as a single mother apparently without family support.
For the daughter, the court held that the Tribunal had rejected the part of her claim based on the same alleged family risks as her mother without a reasoned analysis in the daughter’s own decision. The High Court did not, however, rule on the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s treatment of the daughter’s separate FGM and tribal-marking fears, because the challenge to that finding was not pleaded with sufficient particularity. It also rejected the challenge to the use of country information attached to the section 13 report, finding that the applicants’ legal representatives had access to it and an opportunity to comment.
The court’s order sends both matters back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal’s original refusals have been quashed; the merits of the asylum claims remain for that reconsideration.