The High Court has refused an anonymised Nigerian applicant leave to seek judicial review of a 2005 deportation order, finding that a delay of about two years and nine months had not caused her relevant prejudice before the order was made.
In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2008, Mr Justice Hedigan allowed an extension of time for the proceedings. The applicant had started them about three weeks after the 14-day deadline under the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The respondents had consented to the extension.
The applicant arrived in Ireland on 12 September 2000 and applied for asylum. Her application received a negative recommendation from the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected her appeal. After being told the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform proposed to deport her, she made representations seeking permission to remain. The Department received them on 31 July 2002.
The Minister’s Department did not communicate with her again until 13 May 2005, when her file was considered under immigration and refugee legislation. The Minister made the deportation order on 19 May 2005 and notified her by letter dated 30 May.
The applicant argued that the decision relied on information that was two years and nine months old, breaching fair procedures. The respondents argued that the Minister had considered the matters known to him, as required by law, and that the applicant could have submitted further representations if her circumstances changed.
The judge described the delay as “inordinate” and a matter of “great concern”, saying applicants for protection should receive decisions promptly and should not be left in legal uncertainty. But he distinguished the cases relied on by the applicant because, in those cases, delay had caused prejudice. Here, he found no relevant or significant change in her circumstances between 2002 and 2005 that showed the delay had prejudiced her before the deportation order.
The judgment noted that she married in August 2008 and that an application to revoke the deportation order was then awaiting a ministerial decision. The judge said that later change in her private and family life did not establish prejudice from the earlier delay. Because the applicant had not shown substantial grounds that were reasonable, arguable and weighty, the court refused leave. It did not determine a full judicial review challenge or quash the deportation order.