A NIGERIAN woman has established substantial grounds to challenge as “unreasonable” the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s conclusion that she could reasonably expect to be protected by Nigerian state authorities against being “forcibly circumcised”, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Bryan McMahon yesterday granted the woman leave to challenge the October 2006 tribunal decision refusing her refugee status. He found she had made out a substantial case against the reasonableness of the tribunal decision that state protection against female genital mutilation might reasonably have been forthcoming if she requested it.
In a separate judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan refused to grant leave to another Nigerian woman and her Irish-born daughter, who also claim they will be subjected to mutilation if deported, to challenge the Minister for Justice’s refusal to grant them subsidiary protection here and his decision to issue deportation orders against them.
In Mr Justice McMahon’s decision, he noted the woman claimed her husband’s family had insisted that she be circumcised, and that it became “unbearable” for her to live in her home in Lagos. She described the mutilation practice as “barbaric” and extremely dangerous and fled here in 2006.
The judge noted the tribunal had not disputed the woman’s credibility, but it also found that, although there was no state law in Lagos condemning mutilation, there were some northern states where mutilation was denounced.
It noted police enforcement was unreliable, with many police considering it a family matter.
Because the woman told the tribunal she did not seek aid from the police, it ruled she could not claim that her own state would not protect her and that relocation in Nigeria was an option for her, the judge said. The tribunal said the state of Nigeria was not required to provide “perfect” protection and concluded that failure to approach that state for protection defeated the woman’s claim.
The judge ruled the tribunal decision was “arguably unreasonable”. It was “very debatable” that a more reasonable conclusion would be that state protection would not be forthcoming where there was no federal or state law on mutilation, he believed.
Information relied on by the tribunal did not inspire confidence and seemed to support the woman’s evidence that recourse to the police would have been futile.
In the second case, Mr Justice Hedigan noted the applicant came to Ireland in 2006, when she was seven months pregnant, and applied for asylum. Her husband remained in Nigeria. Both the woman and her Irish-born daughter’s applications for subsidiary protection were rejected.
The applicants sought to challenge that refusal on grounds including that the level of state protection against mutilation in Nigeria had not been adequately assessed.
Refusing leave to bring the challenge, the judge found the applicants had not established the necessary substantial grounds to support their arguments.
