The High Court has refused an application for judicial review challenging the Minister for Justice’s refusal to consent to a Moldovan woman making a further asylum application. The court held that the Minister could consider the reasons she gave for missing an asylum interview and was not required to investigate other matters she had not raised in her request.
The applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, arrived in Ireland in May 2005 and later applied for asylum, citing her religion as the basis of her fear of persecution if returned to Moldova. She did not attend an interview scheduled by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC). The interview letter had been sent by registered post to the address she had provided, but was returned marked “not called for”. The parties agreed this meant a collection notice had been left and the letter was not collected.
ORAC deemed the asylum application withdrawn after she did not attend the interview or provide an explanation within three working days. The Minister then refused her asylum claim. She was refused leave to challenge those decisions. This judicial review concerned a separate decision, dated 6 January 2006, refusing her solicitors’ request for the Minister’s consent under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996 to make a further application.
The request said she had not received the interview letter because she was experiencing difficulties with her post. The High Court noted that it did not address the substance of her asylum claim or include new information about her circumstances. The applicant argued that the Minister had unlawfully restricted his discretion, failed to consider relevant matters and reached a disproportionate decision. She also argued that he should have considered whether she had a prima facie refugee claim and the fact that her son had applied for asylum.
The court rejected those arguments. It said a section 17(7) request is generally for the Minister to consider whether new or altered facts or circumstances create a realistic prospect that the applicant may now qualify for refugee status. Applicants must put the matters they want considered before the Minister, the judgment said. Here, the request relied on the missed letter, rather than new or altered circumstances, and the Minister had considered that explanation.
The court found the Minister was not obliged to assess the underlying refugee claim or consider the son’s application, which was not raised in the request and concerned the applicant alone. It also rejected the proportionality challenge, finding the decision was open to the Minister on the information before him. The court refused the relief sought. It did not decide the underlying asylum claim in this judicial review.