RS & Anor v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a national of Sierra Leone and mother of the minor Plaintiff, who was born in Ireland, applied for international protection within the State on 20 October 2016. She also applied on behalf of her son on 21 December 2018. An International Protection Officer recommended refusal of refugee or subsidiary protection status on 7 August 2019. This negative recommendation was affirmed by the First Respondent on 16 August 2019. The Plaintiff’s claim centered on fears arising from her family’s involvement in the Bondo Women’s Society, which practices female genital mutilation (FGM). The Plaintiff opposed FGM and feared forced initiation and retaliation if returned to Sierra Leone.

The Plaintiff’s mother, a purported leader in the Bondo Society, had died in 2016. Following traditional customs, the Plaintiff was expected to assume her mother’s role and undergo FGM. The Plaintiff alleged she was forcibly detained to undergo FGM but escaped with her husband’s help. The First Respondent dismissed the Plaintiff’s individualised claim as not credible and found no risk of FGM based on her marital status and age. The Plaintiff sought judicial review challenging the First Respondent’s decision, particularly the lack of cogent reasoning and failure to properly consider country of origin information (COI) regarding FGM in Sierra Leone.

Leave for judicial review was granted on 3 June 2020. The Court delivered judgment on 23 April 2021.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First Respondent lawfully and properly assessed the Plaintiff’s individualised claim of risk of forced FGM and leadership succession in the Bondo Society.
2. Whether the First Respondent adequately considered and applied the COI concerning the prevalence and practice of FGM in Sierra Leone in determining the Plaintiff’s risk of serious harm if returned.
3. Whether the First Respondent’s decision was rational, reasonable, and supported by cogent reasoning, or whether it was tainted by insufficient explanation and potential irrationality.
4. Whether the Court was bound by precedent in FU (Nigeria) v. Minister for Justice [2016] IEHC 339 regarding assessment of individualised claims and risk of harm.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The First Respondent’s rejection of the individualised claim was made without cogent reasoning and failed to properly consider the COI.
• The First Respondent erred in dismissing the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claim regarding her mother’s leadership role and the subsequent risk of forced FGM and retaliation.
• The decision on the general risk of FGM to the Plaintiff was irrational and not supported by adequate reasoning given the extensive COI evidencing widespread and forced FGM practices in Sierra Leone.
• The Court should not be bound by the precedent in FU (Nigeria) as the factual circumstances differ substantially.

Respondents' Arguments

• The First Respondent’s decision was reasonable and properly based on the evidence and COI.
• The Plaintiff’s individualised claim lacked credibility, particularly regarding her mother’s role and the likelihood of her being selected as a leader despite her opposition to FGM and Christian faith.
• The general risk of FGM was considered low given the Plaintiff’s age, marital status, and motherhood.
• The precedent in FU (Nigeria) was submitted as binding, supporting the approach to individualised claims and risk assessment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by emphasizing the limited role of judicial review: it cannot substitute its own view for that of the First Respondent but must ensure the decision was made lawfully, rationally, and with proper consideration of relevant evidence.

Regarding the individualised claim, the Court found that the First Respondent’s disbelief of the Plaintiff’s narrative—specifically her mother’s leadership role, the nomination to succeed her, and the circumstances of forced detention—was supported by the evidence before it and not irrational. The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s affidavit and earlier protection questionnaires contained differing accounts, and the First Respondent’s interpretation was open to it.

However, on the general risk of FGM aside from the individualised claim, the Court identified a significant deficiency. The First Respondent’s finding that the Plaintiff, as a married woman with children, was not at risk of FGM was terse and lacked explanation. This was especially problematic given the extensive COI demonstrating that FGM in Sierra Leone is widespread, affects women of various ages (including adults and mothers), and can be forced without consent.

The Court observed that the First Respondent failed to adequately address or reason through the COI data, leaving an unexplained gap in the decision-making process. Attempts by Respondents’ counsel to fill this gap during the hearing underscored the insufficiency of the original reasons.

In light of this, the Court held that while the individualised claim rejection was lawful, the general risk assessment was tainted by lack of reasons and possibly irrationality. The Court declined to apply the precedent from FU (Nigeria) as it was factually distinguishable and involved an admission of falsehoods not present here.

Consequently, the Court granted certiorari quashing the First Respondent’s decision on the general risk issue and remitted it for reconsideration by a different decision-maker with proper attention to the COI.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final ruling is to grant an order of Certiorari quashing the First Respondent’s decision insofar as it relates to the general risk of FGM to the Plaintiff if returned to Sierra Leone.

This decision requires that the matter be reconsidered by another member of the First Respondent with appropriate and reasoned consideration of the COI on FGM’s prevalence and risk to women of the Plaintiff’s profile.

The Court also ordered costs in favor of the Applicants against the Respondents.

No broader precedent was established; the ruling primarily addresses procedural fairness and the necessity for adequate reasoning in protection determinations involving COI.