The High Court has refused A.L.M.’s application for judicial review of a 2012 decision refusing her subsidiary protection. Mr Justice McDermott said there was no basis in law or fact for the claim that the child was a national of Sierra Leone or Rwanda, and that the application had been advanced on a false basis.
A.L.M., an infant born in Galway in 2010, sought subsidiary protection on the basis of claims made by her parents. Her mother, S.P., claimed Sierra Leonean nationality and her father, T.M., claimed Rwandan nationality. They said the child could face serious harm if returned to either country. The Minister refused the child’s application in January 2012.
The court reviewed challenges to the decision, including arguments about how the Minister assessed nationality and credibility, the fairness of the subsidiary protection process, and whether an oral hearing was required. The judge considered European case law on applicants’ right to be heard, including when an interview may be necessary to determine an application fully.
The court said the child’s nationality was disputed and central to identifying the country against which risk had to be assessed. But her claim depended on her parents’ accounts, which had been rejected in their own protection proceedings. The judgment also referred to UK Border Agency information that S.P. had used a Nigerian passport under another name, and to subsequent confirmation that passports submitted for both parents were genuine Nigerian passports. The judge concluded that the parents were Nigerian nationals and that there was no basis for the child’s claimed Sierra Leonean or Rwandan nationality.
The judge said the mother’s account was “patently false from its inception” and that it would be unfair and unreasonable to grant judicial review of a decision advanced on an entirely wrong and false basis. He also said that, even if any of the legal grounds had merit, the court would exercise its discretion against granting relief because of the parents’ lack of candour.
The application was refused. The judgment notes that a deportation order made against the child in August 2012, on the basis that she would be returned to Nigeria, was not challenged in these proceedings and remained in effect. The court did not make a new deportation order in this judgment.