The High Court has refused a Sudanese woman’s application to quash the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of her naturalisation application, finding the reasons given were brief but factually correct and sustainable.
The judicial review concerned a decision dated 3 June 2016 refusing an application for naturalisation made on 30 September 2010. The court heard the application on its merits; it refused to quash the Minister’s decision. It did not grant naturalisation or make any further order in the judgment.
The applicant had come to Ireland in November 2006 and sought asylum. Her asylum application was refused, and a later appeal was remitted for rehearing by a different tribunal member following a High Court order made by consent. She withdrew her asylum application in December 2009. She returned to Sudan for two months from November 2010 and for 19 days in August 2013.
In the naturalisation process, information supplied by the UK Border Agency indicated that she had applied for a UK visa in September 2006. She denied making that application and suspected her identity had been used by smugglers. The refusal decision also referred to her current Sudanese passport, which recorded that it replaced a previously lost passport, and to her not investigating the earlier passport with Sudanese authorities.
The Minister’s recommendation said the applicant’s return to Sudan after seeking asylum, together with the refusal of refugee status, indicated a lack of credibility in her asylum claim. It also said she had admitted that a passport had been issued on incorrect information, and concluded that she was not of good character.
The applicant argued that the Minister had treated good character as an unlawfully high standard, relied on matters without giving her a chance to comment, failed to consider positive factors, and gave inadequate reasons. She also disputed the weight placed on her asylum history and the passport information. The Minister denied the claims and relied on the broad discretion involved in naturalisation decisions.
Justice O’Regan found the applicant knew about her prior dealings with the Minister concerning her asylum claim, so advance notice of those matters was not required. The court considered it reasonable for the Minister to take account of her return to Sudan 11 months after withdrawing an asylum application that had asserted a fear of persecution if returned. It also rejected her proposed reading of the recommendation’s wording and said the Minister was not required to consider waiving the good-character criterion after finding it was not met.
The court concluded that the applicant had not established that the Minister acted arbitrarily, capriciously or autocratically. Her application to quash the refusal was dismissed.