The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision affirming a negative recommendation on her asylum claim. The court ruled that no substantial ground had been raised to warrant leave; it did not grant judicial review or quash the Tribunal’s decision.
The applicant, anonymised in the judgment as A. A., is described as a Moroccan national from the anonymised city of B. M. She claimed she feared religious persecution if returned to Morocco. Her account was that her family and people in a conservative Berber village objected to her less strict lifestyle and her refusal to wear a hijab. She also said villagers had attacked her French friend, Simon, and that she fled with him before travelling to Ireland.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner’s report recommended that she not be declared a refugee. The report accepted the essential facts of her personal history, but concluded that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The High Court said the report’s specific basis was that internal relocation within Morocco would be available; it made no specific conclusion on state protection.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed the negative recommendation. It did not dispute the applicant’s credibility, describing her account as clear and coherent. The Tribunal considered whether she could obtain protection from Moroccan authorities and whether she could relocate to another part of the country. It concluded she had not shown that state protection would fail and that she could safely relocate elsewhere.
In seeking leave, the applicant argued that the Tribunal had applied the wrong test for state protection and that country information showed an effective legal system could not be relied on to protect women who challenged social norms. She also argued that relocation would cause undue hardship, including constant fear of her family finding her and having no option but to work as a prostitute.
The High Court rejected those challenges at the leave stage. It found the Tribunal had considered the appropriate protection test and assessed the applicant’s circumstances as a whole. The judge said the Tribunal was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that she could live elsewhere in Morocco without the same risk and could seek state protection if needed.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 12 October 2011. The application for leave was refused.