The High Court refused an application by a Nigerian woman for leave to challenge a deportation order and an earlier Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 2 May 2008, also refused her request to extend the time limit for challenging the tribunal decision.
The applicant arrived in Ireland aged 15 as an unaccompanied minor and applied for refugee status. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused her appeal in May 2004. She sought judicial review of that decision almost two years later, about 23 months after the statutory 14-day period. The court found no basis to extend the time, noting that she had legal advice available and that the affidavit did not provide evidence to support her claim that the Refugee Legal Service had told her it would not bring judicial review proceedings. The court also considered her proposed grounds insufficiently particularised and not arguable on the facts disclosed.
The applicant separately challenged the Minister’s deportation order, signed on 2 May 2006. She argued that the roughly 16-month interval between her November 2004 representations for leave to remain and the decision meant the information had become outdated. She said the Minister should have contacted her to invite updated representations, including information that her sister and her sister’s family lived lawfully in Ireland and that she lived with them.
The court said the applicant had been told to inform the Minister immediately if facts in her representations changed. It found no evidence that she had updated the Minister or that her sister’s family had arrived only when the decision was being made. The judge concluded that she, rather than the Minister, was responsible for providing relevant updates and that there were no substantial grounds for arguing that the process breached fair procedures.
The applicant also argued that deportation was disproportionate and that the Minister had not given proper reasons. The judgment noted that her earlier representations addressed proportionality and her circumstances as a minor. While the judge said an application by a minor should have been dealt with more expeditiously, he found that delay alone did not establish a breach. He concluded that no substantial grounds had been shown to challenge the deportation order.
The court refused leave to seek the reliefs in the notice of motion. It did not grant the requested judicial-review proceedings or quash either decision.