The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a decision not to recognise a child as a refugee, finding an evidential basis for the Commissioner’s assessment of the application.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on 23 March 2007, concerned an application brought by a minor through his mother and next friend. The case challenged a recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, notified on 2 January 2006, that the child should not be declared a refugee. The court had earlier extended the time for the application by consent.
The mother’s account was that the child had been deported with his father to his parents’ country of origin when he was about a month old, and later returned to Ireland. She said the child had been circumcised there, suffered bleeding and swelling, and could be at risk if returned. She had heard conflicting reports that the father was imprisoned or killed, and said she could not confirm his fate.
The challenge argued, among other grounds, that the Commissioner had wrongly treated the child as a foreign national despite the mother’s claim that he was a citizen of no country; failed to assess the circumcision and the family’s experiences as evidence of persecution; and relied on unidentified country-of-origin information.
The court said the finding that the account of the child’s return was implausible had an evidential basis. It also found evidence to support the conclusion that the delay in applying for asylum undermined the claim’s credibility. The judge noted that the application was made on 6 October 2005, after the child’s reported return on 24 September.
On country information, the court distinguished general references from specific reliance on documents. It found no indication that the applicant had submitted country-of-origin material and considered the Commissioner’s general references consistent with the approach described in an earlier High Court judgment.
The court also upheld the evidential basis for the conclusion that no well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason had been shown. It said the mother’s account did not identify a reason the child would be targeted or describe further harm on return. A reference to the parents’ deportation status did not form the basis of the decision.
The court refused leave. It did not grant the requested orders quashing the refugee recommendation or directing a fresh interview.