The High Court has dismissed a mother and child’s judicial review challenge to decisions rejecting their international protection appeals, finding no legal basis to quash the tribunal decisions. The judge said he would also refuse relief on discretionary grounds because the mother had absconded after a UK transfer decision, frustrating the Dublin system.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as P.O.S. and her minor son N.O.S., sought certiorari of decisions by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). The child’s claim was brought by his mother and next friend. The court heard the challenge after granting leave in November 2017.
The mother, who was born in Nigeria in 1982, said she had become pregnant there and faced a threat of human sacrifice. The judgment records that she arrived in Ireland on 9 January 2012, heavily pregnant, and applied for asylum. Her son was born three days later, and a claim was made on his behalf.
Irish authorities decided in May 2012 that the claims should be transferred to the UK. That decision was upheld on appeal, but the applicants left Balseskin Reception Centre and absconded, preventing the transfer. They reappeared in June 2015, after the transfer deadline had expired, so their claims were considered in Ireland.
The International Protection Office rejected the claims in July and August 2017. IPAT dismissed the appeals on 3 November 2017. In the High Court, the applicants challenged the credibility assessment, the tribunal’s treatment of the mother’s UK visa and other aspects of its decisions, including the decision concerning the child.
The judge rejected each ground. He found the credibility assessment rational and lawful, and said the tribunal’s treatment of the UK visa was clear. He also found no failure to consider relevant material, no unfair or irrational findings, and no basis to assess future harm on facts the tribunal had not accepted. The judge said the child’s decision was naturally similar to his mother’s because their claims were identical, and found no unlawfulness in that approach.
Separately, the judge said the mother had misled decision-makers about her involvement in obtaining a UK visa and that the applicants’ absconding had frustrated the Dublin system. He said he would refuse judicial review even if IPAT had erred. The court dismissed the proceedings; it did not quash the tribunal decisions.