The High Court refused to extend the time for a three-year-old child to seek judicial review of decisions in the asylum process. It also concluded that the points raised by the child and his mother carried insufficient persuasive weight.
The applicants were a Nigerian woman, anonymised in the judgment as FL. K. – M., and her young son, who sued through her as his mother and next friend. They challenged deportation orders made in September 2008 after their asylum applications and an appeal were rejected. The judgment does not state that the court quashed or revoked those orders.
The mother had included her son in her refugee application. The court said the case presented to the asylum bodies did not identify a separate fear of persecution for the child. It reasoned that the alleged threats to the family depended on the mother’s account, which the statutory bodies had found not credible. The judge considered that it was reasonable for those bodies to assess the child’s case in that context.
The child had not challenged the earlier decisions within the statutory time limit. The judge said the delay from the refugee commissioner’s decision in November 2005 exceeded three years by the time of judgment. The mother argued that the applicants had not received separate consideration of the risks they would face if returned to Nigeria. The court refused the child’s request for an extension, citing the length of the delay and the absence of evidence identifying different facts that could have supported a separate claim for him.
The judgment also addressed the mother’s account of threats from her husband’s family following their mixed-religion marriage, her credibility, and a medical claim. The judge said the illness was not then life-threatening and that the medical claim had not been put to the statutory bodies or the Minister before the deportation order. The court found nothing incorrect in the Minister’s approach.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 16 March 2009. The court refused the extension sought for the child and found insufficient persuasive weight in the applicants’ judicial review points. It did not grant leave to commence the child’s late challenge.