High Court rejects challenge by Nigerians to stay in Ireland

In what has been described as an important ruling the High Court has rejected six failed Nigerian asylum seekers challenge against the Minister for Justice's decision not to grant them a subsidiary

protection order which would allow them to remain in the State.

Today at the High Court Mr Justice Peter Charleton found that the applicants, whose applications to be granted asylum in Ireland were turned down, are not entitled to judicial review of the Minister's

decision to refuse them subsidiary protection.

Subsidiary protection is provided to failed asylum seekers if their deportation would result in a serious and concrete threat to the person's life, or other inhuman or degrading treatment and if their

deportation would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants, who cannot be identified for legal purposes, had sought protection on grounds including that they feared for the lives and that one of their daughters would be subject to female genital mutilation if returned to Nigeria.

They all applied for subsidiary protection, after they their applications for asylum were refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Minister refused

their applications for subsidiary protection.

The group, none of whom had any passports or identification documents, claimed that the Minister's refusal was made by a procedure which was in breach of their rights, and sought to have the decision subject to judicial review. The State had opposed their action.

One of the applicants, who had applied for subsidiary protection with her son and daughter, claimed that she fled Nigeria, leaving behind other daughters, after her family wanted to make her the head of an occult shrine. She feared her daughter would be subject to female genital mutilation.

The woman, who suffers from depression, claimed that she had been beaten as a result of her refusal to take part in activities including animal sacrifice, mixing of blood to drink, and if she returned she would be killed.

A second woman said that she was tricked into prostitution by a woman called "Madame Iron Lady", who arranged for her to go to Italy after offering her work in a factory there.

After months in captivity she claims she fled to Ireland, via Austria and the UK, after escaping from a house where she said she was to undergo an abortion.

The woman, who has a son, claims that she cannot go back to Nigeria because after taking occult oaths not to run away she fears that she will "go mad or die," and that she owes "Madame Iron Lady" €60,000.

The third woman, who has no children, claimed she was forced to work as a prostitution in Italy by a woman called "Madame Vivian."

She escaped, thanks to the help of a client, but claims she cannot go back to Nigeria because she took an oath at a shrine saying that if he ran away from "Madame Vivian" she would die.

All three applications for refugee status were turned down on grounds including that their various accounts "fundamentally lacked credibility," that that there was nothing preventing them from seeking protection from the Nigerian authorities on their return.

In his Judgment the Judge said that he was satisfied that the two woman who claimed to have worked as prostitutes were persons "not entitled to subsidiary protection under the relevant definition under European Law."

He said there was nothing stopping them from returning and living quietly in another part of the country.

"In so far as they claim to fear magic the court must discount this as a reason, which has nothing to do with the relevant definition giving an entitlement to legitimately seek the protection of a member State," he said.

In finding that the woman fleeing the actions of those involved in a pagan shrine was equally not entitled to subsidiary protection, the Judge said that any fears she had about her daughter suffering from FGM could be countered by moving to a part of Nigeria, a territory of some 1 million square kms, that forbids such practices.

Mr Justice Charleton said that the primary focus for subsidiary protection applications are "allegations made in relation to what may happen to applicants if returned to their country of origin."

"In defining a right to be protected against serious harm the European and Irish legislation both focus on attacks or threat's by human agency," said the judge.

This definition, he said, included allegations that someone in their country will execute them, subjecting them to torture, degrading treatment or being put in danger due to war, but excluded the state of health of an applicant.

He added that the concept of subsidiary protection does not apply to individual circumstances "concerned with the commission of crime, such as trafficking or prostitution or genital mutilation," unless a state of affairs exists in the country of origin that protection is not available to them.

The Judge added that the Minister must make a fair and reasoned appraisal of any application for subsidiary protection, following submissions from the applicant, based on what is known about the

relevant country of origin.

The Judge said that in all of the cases material was put forward that was a repeat of what had been previously submitted by the women in their applications to be granted asylum.

While there was some additional material submitted in the case of one of the applications, he was satisfied that all the material was properly considered.