The High Court dismissed a mother and daughter’s judicial review of the refusal to let them make a subsequent application for international protection, and discharged an injunction that had restrained their deportation.
The case concerned the International Protection Office’s decision of 17 November 2017. The office had concluded that the applicants had presented no new elements or findings that made it significantly more likely they would qualify for protection. The judicial review was amended so the applicants could seek certiorari of that decision.
The applicants’ main challenge was that the daughter should have been given a personal interview. Their barrister accepted that the mother was not entitled to one. The court said the applicants had not requested an interview and had not stated in their court papers that its absence had hampered them. It found they had not shown how an interview would have significantly advanced the case or been necessary to make their right to be heard effective.
The judge also rejected the argument based on the EU Charter’s requirements to consider the child’s best interests and hear her views. He said her views had been provided in writing and that a written procedure did not breach the requirement to hear the child. The alleged persecution pre-dated her birth, and the court found it had not been shown that she had the age and understanding to contribute meaningfully on that issue.
The judgment records that the mother arrived in Ireland in February 2006, aged 16, and that her daughter was born there that month. Their asylum application was refused in May 2006 and an appeal was dismissed in July. Deportation orders were made in 2009. The applicants later sought revocation; that application was rejected in November 2016. The subsequent-application request was made on 31 October 2017 after they were informed they would be deported.
The court described the 2017 request as an abusive, last-minute application made for delay. It noted that the mother went to hospital on the day she was due to be collected for deportation. The hospital reported no reason she could not board an aircraft, no sinister cause for her symptoms, and that she was mobile on discharge.
The court dismissed the judicial review and, applying *Okunade v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform*, discharged the injunction restraining deportation. It did not grant the requested relief to quash the refusal or declare that the applicants could remain pending its determination.