The High Court refused to extend the time for a Nigerian mother and her Irish-born son to seek judicial review of decisions rejecting their asylum claims. Mr Justice Hedigan said the grounds they advanced were “so unstatable” that allowing the case to proceed out of time would be futile.
The applicants sought to challenge a recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that they should not be declared refugees, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s (RAT) subsequent refusal of their appeal. The case concerned only whether the deadline should be extended to permit the judicial review application to be made; the court did not grant leave to bring the review.
The mother said her husband’s family objected to their marriage and, when she became pregnant in 2005, told her she would have to undergo female genital mutilation and that the child would face tribal rituals. She said her husband supported his family’s wishes. She left Nigeria while pregnant. Her son was born in Ireland in November 2005.
ORAC recommended refusing refugee status in March 2006, citing negative credibility findings and the availability of state protection and internal relocation. The RAT dismissed the appeal in September 2006, also finding the mother lacked credibility and that internal relocation was available.
The judicial review motion was filed on 19 October 2006, outside the 14-day time limit: about seven months late as to the ORAC decision and 12 days late as to the RAT decision. The applicants accepted there had been substantial delay but argued time should be extended because the son was a very young child. The respondents opposed an extension.
The applicants argued that ORAC had failed to assess the child’s fears individually. The judge said the alleged fear was that the boy might be submerged in a river as part of an unspecified ritual. No evidence or country-of-origin information had been provided to show that such practices occurred or what harm the ritual might cause. The judge noted that ORAC’s decision repeatedly referred to the child and his alleged fear, including when discussing protection and relocation.
Adopting an approach from an earlier case involving a minor, the judge said a child should not automatically be penalised for a parent’s delay. But an extension was not automatic: the court retained discretion, which could depend on the strength of the proposed grounds. He concluded that ORAC had specifically considered the child’s position and that the applicants had not shown good and sufficient reason to extend time. The court therefore refused the extension.