The High Court refused a mother and daughter’s application for leave to seek judicial review of deportation orders made against them, finding no substantial grounds to challenge the Minister’s assessment of the risk of return to Nigeria.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Ryan on 22 October 2010, concerned orders notified on 3 February 2010. The mother, a Nigerian national who arrived in Ireland in December 2005, had unsuccessfully sought asylum and subsidiary protection. Her daughter was born in Ireland on 17 January 2006. The mother had told authorities that she fled after her family drove her from home during pregnancy and members of a secret cult linked to her boyfriend sought to sacrifice her baby. Those were her claims, not findings made by the court.
The applicants argued that the Minister’s reasoning on refoulement was unclear, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform*. The Minister’s letter said he was satisfied that section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, which prohibits refoulement, was complied with.
Justice Ryan considered the country-of-origin information cited in the Minister’s report, which addressed police protection, cults and internal relocation. He said the material and the report’s conclusion, read together, made the reasoning clear: the Minister had concluded that repatriation would not breach section 5. The court rejected the applicants’ criticism that the conclusion might have rested on one or another of those subjects, stating that a challenge would require showing that at least one issue lacked support in the material.
The applicants also argued that the two cases’ reports referred to each other and failed to assess the possibility of separating the family. The judge found those references did not breach fair procedures or invalidate the decisions. He also rejected the claim that the daughter had been denied an individual assessment because her subsidiary protection decision relied on the mother’s credibility.
The court refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not conduct a full judicial review hearing or overturn the deportation orders; it decided only that there were no substantial grounds for challenging the decision at the leave stage.