Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 12: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for his views of female genital mutilation as a cultural issue rather than a human rights issue; and the further reason he does not consider women fleeing female genital mutilation to meet the refugee status criteria of fearing persecution on the grounds of membership of a particular social group, in view of the fact that the Refugee Act 1996 specifies that women are to be considered a particular social group. [3525/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, there is a statutory framework governing the asylum determination process in Ireland set out in the Refugee Act 1996 and it is not for me as Minister to determine who is or is not a refugee. The 1996 Act established two independent statutory offices to consider applications and appeals in respect of refugee status and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted. These offices are the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The processing of applications within the framework of the 1996 Act in particular has due regard to the definition of a "refugee" in section 2 of that Act, which states that a "refugee" is " ... a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it".

Every asylum applicant is guaranteed an investigation and determination of his or her claim at first instance by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. Each application is assessed on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case and having regard to both the subjective elements — the applicant's own account or personal history — and objective elements — up-to-date information on the applicant's country or place of origin. This country of origin information comes from a wide variety of sources, including organisations such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UK Home Office, the Canadian International Refugee Board, the US State Department and other EU member states as well as media and Internet sources.

ORAC and RAT also consider the well-foundedness of each applicant's claim, that is, whether there are sufficient facts to permit the finding that, if returned to his or her country of origin, the applicant would face a serious risk of persecution. Credibility is also central to assessing an application, and it falls to the ORAC and RAT to decide whether the applicant's account is credible and whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Issues of relevance in assessing credibility include: (a) contradictions-inconsistencies; (b) plausibility of the applicant; and (c) level of detail in the claim. A negative finding as to overall credibility will generally lead to a conclusion that the applicant does not qualify for protection.

There must also be a link between the persecution as alleged and one or more of the grounds set out in both the 1996 Act and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, namely, being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The issue of the so-called "Internal Protection Alternative" is also relevant in many cases. If a person can find real and meaningful protection in any area in his or her own country, then clearly that person does not need international protection and the obligation to afford refugee status does not arise.

Our system also guarantees every asylum applicant a right of appeal to a statutorily independent and separate body — the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Every asylum applicant is also guaranteed access to legal assistance provided by the Refugee Legal Service. The Deputy should also be aware that the UNHCR is given full access to our refugee determination process and can examine any case at any time to ensure fair procedures and compliance with our Geneva Convention obligations.

I fully recognise that female genital mutilation is a practice which exists in a number of African countries. In the case of Nigeria, for example, country of origin information indicates that its prevalence varies widely from state to state within Nigeria. Indeed, a United Kingdom Home Office report on Nigeria, quoting another study, published in October 2005, indicates that the practice of FGM, which is described as a cultural tradition, has declined steadily over the past 15 years.

Country of origin information also indicates that: the Nigerian Government publicly opposes the practice of FGM. While there are no federal laws banning FGM throughout the country, the practice has been specifically prohibited in parts of Nigeria at State and local government level; there is evidence that the Government and NGOs have taken initiatives aimed at informing and educating people about the dangers of the practice. For example, the Ministry of Health, women's groups, and many NGOs sponsored public awareness projects to educate communities about the health hazards of FGM; according to BAOBAB, a Nigerian Women's NGO, as referenced in the Joint British Home Office-Danish Immigration Service fact-finding mission to Nigeria published in January 2005, the Government and prominent NGOs in Nigeria provide protection to women escaping FGM. BAOBAB was of the opinion that FGM in itself is not a genuine reason for applying for asylum abroad; a United Kingdom and Danish authorities report, which was published in early 2005, points out that there are groups working to stop the practice of FGM and should a girl desire to avoid FGM in spite of pressure from her family to do otherwise, she would have the option of complaining to the national police force or the Nigerian Human Rights Commission and may also seek the protection of NGO's; and women have the option of relocating to another part of the country if they fear FGM.

Numerous country of origin information reports from reliable sources which have looked at the applicability of the internal relocation concept in countries such as Nigeria, for example, have found that such relocation is not just possible, but happens in practice.