The High Court refused leave to challenge deportation orders made against two children of an asylum-seeking family, finding no substantial grounds to require their applications to be considered separately. It also refused an extension of time to amend the statement of grounds and declined ancillary relief.
The redacted judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 28 February 2007, concerned four applicants identified only by initials. The two children were the third and fourth applicants. Their parents and children, ethnic Serbs native to what is now Croatia, arrived in Ireland in November 2002 seeking asylum.
The parents’ asylum applications were refused in May 2003, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed those recommendations in November 2003. Four deportation orders were made on 11 October 2004. The proceedings challenged the orders relating to the children. By the time of the judgment, the only issue pursued was whether their asylum applications should have received separate consideration.
The second applicant, the children’s mother, had signed a waiver on 1 November 2002 stating that individual consideration of the children by the Refugee Applications Commissioner was unnecessary. The applicants argued that the Minister nonetheless had a separate duty under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 to consider each person facing deportation. They also argued that the Commissioner’s independence meant the waiver did not remove the Minister’s obligation.
The court said the applicants had not identified special or distinguishing circumstances requiring separate consideration. The issue had not been raised during the asylum process, and no reason was given why the absence of legal advice invalidated the waiver. The judgment also said the applicants had a primary responsibility to bring distinct or relevant issues to the Minister’s attention. Although the Minister’s responsibilities differed from the Tribunal’s, that alone did not establish a need for a separate waiver or assessment.
A separate issue concerned the timing of an amendment to the statement of grounds. The court concluded that, because no substantial grounds had been established, there was no basis to extend the time. It refused leave and any other ancillary relief. The ruling addressed the threshold for permission to proceed with the challenge; it did not grant the requested relief.