Refugee Applications Commissioner’s finding in relation to state protection was lawful

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Irish-born Nigerian minor challenging the decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner refusing to recommend that she be granted refugee status - mother failed in her own asylum claim – claimed to fear forced marriage, being compelled to practice Islam, the possibility of being tattooed, and of being subject to female genital mutilation - fears all stem from her father and his family – adverse credibility findings – whether the question of female genital mutilation was adequately addressed – clear that the alleged fear of F.G.M. emanating from her father was disbelieved because it was not accepted that her mother feared harm from her father – no error of law/errors as to jurisdiction – capable of being the subject of an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal - general presumption in favour of state protection – argued that the presumption unlawfully placed the burden of proof on an applicant to establish “clear and convincing evidence to rebut” the presumption which exists in international law of the availability of state protection - burden of proof in refugee claims - the onus is on the applicant for refugee status to establish both a subjective fear of persecution and an objective basis for that fear - “clear and convincing proof” required to rebut the presumption – duty to cooperate - two separate stages of assessment - first stage concerns the establishment of factual circumstances - second stage concerns legal appraisal - both stages must be performed at first instance – issue of state protection determined by reference to detailed and relevant country of origin information which set out the availability of protection from government agencies and private organisations for persons expressing the fears advanced as the basis for the claim of refugee status in this case – presumption in favour of state protection not used to determine the issue of state protection – argued that the decision maker unlawfully conflated the issues of state protection and internal relocation - as a matter of fact, it did not happen - each point sought to be litigated in these proceedings could have been argued at appeal – her appeal was stayed pending the determination of these proceedings – five-year delay - a person with a bona fide claim for refugee status would be unlikely to embark on protracted litigation challenging a first instance decision - a consequence of litigating rather than appealing is that the litigants are permitted to remain in Ireland for as long as the litigation takes – tribunal’s concern that it would be wasteful to process an appeal where there are proceedings challenging the decision of the commissioner is misplaced – appeal may only stay an appeal if so ordered by the High Court - appeals must be processed notwithstanding a judicial review challenging the decision of the Commissioner.