The High Court refused a Nigerian woman leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order, finding that she had not established substantial grounds to challenge the Minister’s decision. The court also extended the time for bringing the proceedings, which had started a few days late. Because leave was refused, it did not consider whether to grant interlocutory relief.
The woman had sought leave to remain and subsidiary protection after her asylum application and appeal were rejected. She said members of a religious sect in Delta State threatened her after she refused to perform rituals. She also said a trafficker brought her to Ireland and told her she would have to work as a prostitute, but that she escaped at Heuston Station.
Her challenge argued that the Minister should have referred her trafficking claim to An Garda Síochána and investigated it further. She also argued that the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008, which came into force while the Minister was considering deportation, was a significant change requiring reconsideration.
The Minister’s submissions said the trafficking claim was not properly before the decision-maker: the written representations supporting leave to remain made only a brief reference to the trafficker, and the woman’s personal statement did not mention trafficking. The judgment records that her earlier asylum process had addressed the claim and that negative credibility findings were made.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the court had no role in directing criminal investigations or prosecutions. He also found no obligation on the Minister to investigate beyond the material submitted. Since the representations and personal statement did not address trafficking or the 2008 Act, the Minister’s officer was not required to investigate further.
On the claimed change in circumstances, the judge held that the 2008 Act did not amount to a significant change since the asylum decisions. He noted that earlier legislation and other steps addressing trafficking already existed. Even if the Act represented a change, he said, it was not significant enough to arguably lead to a different outcome, so the Minister was not required to undertake a substantial reconsideration.
The court concluded that substantial grounds for quashing the deportation decision had not been shown and refused leave. It made no ruling on interlocutory relief.