The High Court refused the family’s application for leave to seek judicial review of two refusals of subsidiary protection and a decision to make deportation orders against six family members. The court found no case for granting leave in respect of any of the challenged decisions.
The applicants were the anonymised parents, G.D. and M.D., and five minor children. The youngest child was born in Ireland in 2006 and had a separate asylum application pending; that child was not covered by the three decisions under challenge. The parents and four children had arrived in Ireland in May 2004 and applied for asylum. Their claims that they were Ashkali from Serbia and had suffered ethnic persecution were rejected in 2005 after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal found their accounts not credible.
The Minister refused subsidiary protection in 2008 and made six deportation orders for the parents and four children. The family sought judicial review. The court considered whether the children’s circumstances and medical evidence about the parents had been properly addressed, as well as challenges concerning country of origin information and the treatment of Ashkali people.
On the children’s subsidiary protection claims, the judge said the decisions made little separate mention of the children, but their asserted risk was the same family-wide risk advanced by the parents. The court found no distinct risk had been put forward that required separate consideration. The deportation memorandum, the judge said, referred to the children, their schooling and medical circumstances, and considered the family’s situation.
The parents relied on reports concerning the father’s heart condition, diabetes and mental health, and the mother’s depression and treatment. The judge said the medical evidence had been considered in the deportation decision. The reports did not establish that the alleged past attacks had occurred, or provide a basis to require a different decision on the protection claims. The court also noted that differences in the quality of medical care available in Serbia and Ireland did not, by themselves, invalidate the deportation decision.
The applicants argued that material they had submitted about minority conditions in Serbia had not been adequately considered. The judge accepted that some older documents described serious difficulties for minorities, including Ashkali people. However, the decision memoranda had considered the submitted documents and relied on more recent country information, including reports about conditions in the Presevo Valley. The court found no arguable basis to challenge that assessment.
The ruling was limited to whether leave should be granted for judicial review. The court refused leave on all grounds; it did not make a new asylum or subsidiary protection determination.