Bolivian family refused asylum where they could avail of state protection

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – telescoped hearing – Bolivian mother and her two children challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing them refugee status - husband began to abuse her, both verbally and physically – he was a well-connected lawyer – member of a racist organisation – his family were well connected with the political party in power in Bolivia until 2001 – she left him - husband found them - went to London as a student - husband came to London and her daughter followed – she contacted the police because he was threatening her – she did not make a formal complaint - became undocumented in the UK - applied for residency and was apprehended by immigration officers - she and her daughter were subsequently deported to Bolivia - husband returned to Bolivia - lived together but the problems began again - she was unable to report him as he is a lawyer and has influential connections - left Bolivia with her two children - intended destination was the UK but the applicants were apprehended at Dublin airport - no credibility issues - tribunal member decided that state protection would be available – found that she does not belong to a particular social group – she argued that they, as a family unit, can form a social group – argued that women can also form a social group – no reasons for the preferment of country of origin information that did not support their claim was given by the decision-maker – argued that the tribunal member erred in law in making findings in respect of state protection without making any assessment of the adequacy of such protection in light of their particular circumstances, and failed to have regard to the connections of the applicants’ husband and father - reasonable protection in practical terms – argued that the reasoning within the decision is inadequate - no evidence of any consideration given to the situation of the second child – decision must be read as a whole - whether the child has a separate and independent fear of persecution - where no separate and distinctive fears are identified on behalf of the children, then the children’s case has been considered as predicated on that of the mother’s claim – state protection findings – Court found that the State protection finding was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.