C.I.I.K (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 77
• Date: 11 February 2015
• Court: High Court

[2015] IEHC 77

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1391 J.R./2010]

C.I.I.K (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform & Ors.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

C.I.I.K (AN INFANT SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND P.K) (NIGERIA)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

Order of Certiorari – Refugee Appeal Tribunal – Fear of Persecution - Refugee Act 1996 – Child Applicant – Female Genital Mutilation – Subjective Credibility – Country of Origin Information

Facts: This case concerned a telescoped application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named Respondent to affirm the decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the Applicant not be declared a refugee and seeking an order remitting the appeal of the Applicant for determination de novo by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, it was claimed had a well-founded fear of forcible female genital mutilation if returned to Nigeria. Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the decision challenged relied entirely on an assessment of the credibility of the claim. It was also submitted that State Protection was not considered and that internal relocation was not an option. It was further claimed that the Tribunal Member did not assess the country of origin”s report in respect of the claim and concluded simply that the claim was not true.

Held by Justice Eagar, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the submissions presented and available evidence, that the decision on credibility was one which was appropriately made by the administrative decision maker. Consequently, Justice Eagar refused to grant the relief sought and dismissed the application for certiorari.

1 1. This is a telescoped application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named Respondent to affirm the decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the Applicant not be declared a refugee and seeking an order remitting the appeal of the Applicant for determination de novo by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

2 2. The Applicant was born on the 3 ^rd February 2006 in a maternity hospital in Ireland and is a citizen of Nigeria. The mother of the Applicant completed an ASY&form on the 27 ^th April 2008 and completed the questionnaire on the 8 ^th May 2006. The Refugee Applications Commissioner interviewed the mother of the Applicant on the 30 ^th June 2006 and on the 31 ^st July 2009 the Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that the Applicant had not established a well founded fear of persecution as required by s.2 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) and should not be declared a refugee. The Applicant's mother appealed this decision and on the 2 ^nd September 2010 the second named Respondent heard the appeal. On the 4 ^th October 2010 the second named Respondent affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner in relation to the question of refugee status.

The Applicant's claim

3 3. The Applicant is a child born in Ireland but of Nigerian nationality by virtue of her parentage. She was born on the 23 ^rd February 2006 and she is now 8 years of age. The Applicant's mother is from outside Owerri in Imo State. She is an Igbo. She married her husband in October 2000 and lived Owerri afterwards. The family tradition is that the girl is circumcised. The mother-in-law is the main one who wanted it done but she would have got someone to do it. Her own family does not do it. The pressure came from the husband's family. It is usually done a few days after birth. If it is not done it can be done a little later. When the mother-in-law saw that she would not do it that caused problems. She forcefully took the other daughter to do it. The mother took the daughter away.

4 4. The grandmother made many attempts to do this but it did not go ahead as the mother managed to take the older daughter away. The husband told his mother he would do it by the time they were five. She thinks he did this to get the mother-in-law to back off. The husband's attitude now because they are here in Ireland is that it would not be done but if he is in Nigeria she does not know what he would do. Her husband was a lawyer and used to represent members of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). He also became a member of...