The High Court has refused a Nigerian-born child’s application to quash a decision that restricted his asylum appeal to a papers-only hearing, finding that the claim he presented through his father mirrored the family’s previously examined claims.
The judicial review challenged a decision by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (RAC) under section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996. The Commissioner had found that the child’s application showed “either no basis or a minimal basis” for claiming refugee status. That meant any appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) would be decided on the papers, without an oral hearing.
The child, identified in the judgment as B. O. A., was born in Ireland in 2008 to Nigerian parents. His father applied for asylum on his behalf in 2010 and answered questions at interview. He said the family feared the Awopa Fraternity, including the possibility that the child could be kidnapped to pressure his father to join it. He also described risks to other family members. The father said the child’s claim was not separate from the family’s claim.
The RAC rejected the child’s application after considering the family’s earlier reports. It found his stated fears were not well-founded, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim lacked a connection to a Convention reason. The father argued in the judicial review that credibility required an oral hearing and that relying on the family’s cases denied the child an independent assessment. The respondents submitted that the child’s claim had been examined and was the same as his father’s.
Justice Stewart held that an oral hearing is not always required for fair procedures. She distinguished earlier cases cited by the applicant, where the section 13(6) grounds did not directly correspond to the claimed persecution. Here, the no-basis finding was directly connected to the claim as presented.
The court also found that the father had presented the same claim for the child and that the RAC was entitled to consider the family’s earlier applications. It rejected the argument that a later settlement of tribunal proceedings concerning family members meant the material used in the child’s case could not be considered. The judge noted that the father’s RAC report had not been quashed; the mother and sister’s first report had been quashed by consent, but a later negative report was issued before the child’s interview.
The court concluded that the section 13(6)(a) finding was within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and refused the relief sought. It did not quash the RAC decision or remit the application for reconsideration.