The High Court dismissed Jeanette Fampumu’s judicial review challenge to a decision concerning her transfer to Belgium, finding that the Minister was entitled to conclude that she had not shown a “serious illness” under the Dublin II Regulation.
Mr Justice Cooke delivered the judgment on 25 March 2010. The challenged decision, made on 19 May 2009, refused a request to let Ms Fampumu remain in Ireland with her sister and upheld a transfer order. The court’s ruling dismissed the judicial review; it did not determine Ms Fampumu’s asylum claim.
Ms Fampumu, a Democratic Republic of Congo national, arrived in Ireland in October 2005 and claimed asylum. After it emerged that she had previously claimed asylum in Belgium, the Refugee Applications Commissioner determined that she should be transferred there. An earlier High Court order in December 2008 quashed the original transfer order and required the Minister to reconsider submissions about her medical condition.
In renewed submissions, her representatives relied on medical reports describing nerve pain and psychological difficulties following injuries in the Congo. They also argued that she depended on her sister, a nurse living in Ireland, and invoked Article 15.2’s provisions for keeping asylum seekers with relatives when serious illness creates dependency. The Minister’s memorandum said the medical reports did not show a serious illness and that Belgian authorities could provide appropriate care.
The High Court considered the reports from 2006 and updates from 2009. The earlier reports described inpatient treatment, a complex pain condition, psychological instability and a need for the sister’s support. Justice Cooke said the 2009 reports indicated continuing pain and psychological fragility, but were less urgent and suggested substantial improvement. They did not explain in detail how treatment had worked over the intervening years. The applicant’s evidence also did not describe specific daily tasks she could not manage or the practical assistance her sister provided beyond comfort and support.
The court said the applicant bore the burden of showing serious illness and that the Minister’s decision could be quashed only if there was no rational basis for it. Given the 2009 medical evidence and the lack of concrete information about practical incapacity, the Minister was entitled to find that Article 15.2 did not apply.
The Minister also argued that relevant information about Ms Fampumu’s marriage and pregnancy had not been disclosed when leave for judicial review was sought. The judgment records that she married in February 2009 and gave birth to a son in November 2009. The court said the marriage and pregnancy were pertinent and should have been disclosed, and observed that disclosure might have led to a different view on leave. It made no additional finding on the non-disclosure argument because it had already dismissed the challenge on its merits.