The High Court has refused a mother and daughter’s applications for judicial review of decisions affirming recommendations that they should not be declared refugees. The court severed the internal-relocation decision in the mother’s case but otherwise held that both decisions were reasonable and lawful.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar delivered the judgment on 7 July 2015 after the related applications were heard together. The applicants sought certiorari, an order quashing the Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions. Their grounds included alleged failures to apply protection standards, consider relevant material and assess the claims properly, as well as delay in deciding the appeals.
The mother, from Nigeria, said she feared people connected with her father’s killing, her uncle’s disappearance and a woman identified in the judgment only as “B.” She also described being taken from Nigeria to Ireland while pregnant. The daughter was born in Dublin in 2008. The mother’s account and fears were allegations considered in the refugee process; the High Court did not make findings that the events occurred.
The Tribunal had raised credibility concerns about the mother’s account, including her inability to provide B.’s full name and questions concerning her documents and claimed age. It also considered whether she could relocate within Nigeria. The High Court found it was erroneous for the Tribunal to address internal relocation after making adverse credibility findings. It nevertheless severed that part of the decision, allowing the remainder to stand.
The judge rejected the mother’s challenges to the remaining reasoning. He said her counsel had not identified relevant, up-to-date country information or specified which personal circumstances the Tribunal had failed to consider. The court also found that the Tribunal had addressed whether the account could have happened and that no concrete examples had been given to support the claim that issues raised on appeal were ignored. The judgment noted that the legislation set no time limit for deciding an appeal.
The daughter’s claim rested on the same asserted fear as her mother’s. The court said the child’s age and lifelong residence in Ireland would have to be considered in any deportation decision. It also noted that issues relating to her case could be examined in a subsidiary-protection application.
The court refused certiorari in respect of both applicants and concluded that the Tribunal decisions were reasonable and in accordance with law.