CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015
children. The author also tried to contact the federal neuropsychiatric hospital in Yaba, but
received no reply. However, information on the hospital’s website regarding services
offered did not indicate that the hospital provided treatment for children with autism. As it
was also stated in the decision of the Migration Agency that most of the federal medical
centres and teaching hospitals in Nigeria provided services for children with autism, the
author tried to find information in that regard. However, he did not find any indication that
such services were available. After several attempts, the author managed to contact a doctor
at the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital. In a telephone conversation, the doctor stated
that the hospital did not offer services for autistic children. The author also tried to find
preschools for autistic children in Nigeria on the Internet, but could not find any.
2.5
On 30 October 2014, the decision to reject the family’s application for asylum was
upheld by the Migration Court. The author and his wife submitted an application for leave
to appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal on 2 December 2014. In that submission, the
author’s counsel addressed the issue of the separation of E.O.J.’s health case from the
family’s asylum case. The family’s application for leave to appeal was rejected by the
Migration Court of Appeal on 22 December 2014.
2.6
In November 2014, the author and his wife applied for the expulsion order not to be
enforced under an impediment of enforcement procedure and for them to be granted
residence permits on the grounds of their son’s disability. In that application, they included
the information that they had received from the Nigerian hospitals, a description of the
symptoms suffered by their son and a report from the psychologist who was treating E.O.J.
in Sweden. On 9 January 2015, the Migration Agency issued a negative decision,
reiterating its first decision of June 2014 and stating that medical care for children with
autism as well as preschools for children with autism were available in Nigeria.
2.7
On 30 January 2015, the author and his wife filed another application for
impediment of enforcement of the deportation order and provided information from three
sources in Nigeria, according to which, no help would be available for their son in Nigeria,
neither from the aforementioned hospitals referred to by the Migration Agency nor from
any public hospital. The evidence submitted by the author included a statement from a
speech pathologist in Nigeria, who stated that the public health system in Nigeria did not
provide autism-specific services, an article from a psychologist and an advocate for
children with autism in Nigeria, which stated that services in Nigeria for children with
autism were inadequate or non-existent, even for parents who could afford private health
care. The author and his wife also provided a newspaper article on the situation of children
with autism in Nigeria, according to which, no governmental policy initiative had been
developed for autism treatment, and a report from their son’s doctor in Sweden, stating that
E.O.J.’s case was different from that of other autistic children with average intelligence,
because of his multiple developmental disabilities. The doctor noted that E.O.J. was
undergoing treatment that could not be interrupted and that the treatment was scheduled to
continue for an additional year and a half in order to achieve positive results and avoid
further complications. The author also attached to the application reports from his son’s
preschool, describing his development and explaining why he should remain in the same
environment for there to be any improvement.
2.8
On 26 February 2015, the application was rejected by the Migration Agency on the
grounds that assistance was available in Nigeria. The case officer noted that E.O.J.’s ill
health was not sufficiently attested through medical certificates drawn up in accordance
with the National Board of Health and Welfare regulations. However, he considered that
the existence of a valid medical certificate was not of crucial importance to the case. He
found the newspaper article on the situation of autistic children in Nigeria to be intended as
an opinion piece and did not constitute the kind of objective country information that could
be used to assess the care available in the country. The report by the psychologist and
advocate for the rights of people living with autism in Nigeria was also found to be an
opinion piece and not an objective report on access to care for people with autism in
Nigeria. The case officer noted that the statement from the speech pathologist only
mentioned that there was no help available from the public health-care system, but did not
provide any information on the private sector. The decision of the Migration Agency was
not subject to appeal.
3