The High Court refused leave for a judicial review challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s 2011 refusal of refugee status to a child born in Ireland to a mother from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The case was heard by Ms Justice Stewart, who delivered judgment on 9 July 2015. The child, identified in the judgment only as R.M., sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 28 July 2011 and have the appeal reconsidered.
The child’s mother made the refugee application on his behalf in April 2011. At an interview, she said he had no fear of returning to the DRC and that she, rather than the child, was in danger. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing refugee status, finding no well-founded fear of persecution or connection to a Convention ground. The Commissioner also made a finding under section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996, which meant the appeal to the tribunal was decided on the papers.
The tribunal rejected the appeal, reasoning that the child had no separate fear and that his mother’s fear had already been found not well-founded. In the judicial review, the child’s counsel argued that the tribunal should have considered up-to-date country information, that a papers-only appeal prevented a challenge to credibility findings, and that the child’s best interests had not been properly considered. The child also argued that the tribunal should have responded to a letter requesting earlier tribunal decisions. The letter referred to cases involving Nigeria and the persecution of homosexuals; counsel said those references were typographical errors.
Justice Stewart said the section 13(6)(a) finding was not under review and was outside the court’s power to interfere with in these proceedings. The court’s task was limited to reviewing the tribunal hearing and decision for fairness and legality. The judge also refused to admit an affidavit about an alleged bias ground, noting that it was raised only during the hearing and had not been properly pleaded or served.
The judge found that the appeal notice did not provide a specific DRC claim or supporting country information, and that no distinct fear had been expressed for the child. She accepted that the tribunal was not required to conduct a hypothetical assessment of country conditions where the claim had no supporting basis. She also rejected the argument about the letter, which concerned a different country and issue and had no relevance to the child’s case.
The court concluded there was no basis for the challenge and refused leave. It did not quash the tribunal’s decision or order a reconsideration.