The High Court has refused leave for a mother and her minor daughter to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision after finding no justification to extend the time limit for starting judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 27 July 2007. The application sought, among other relief, an order quashing the Tribunal decision, which had affirmed a recommendation that the mother should not be declared a refugee. The court was considering whether to permit the challenge to proceed; it did not determine the underlying asylum claim or grant the requested relief.
The mother had claimed asylum on arrival in Ireland, saying that if returned to Nigeria her unborn daughter would face circumcision by her husband’s family. She also said her first daughter had undergone circumcision and died shortly afterwards. The Tribunal had questioned her credibility and concluded that the feared treatment did not amount to persecution, that she could relocate elsewhere in Nigeria, and that police protection was available. Those were the Tribunal’s conclusions, not findings made in this judicial review application.
The Tribunal decision was dated 9 December 2005 and notified by letter dated 29 December. The court treated 1 January 2006 as the deemed date of receipt and said proceedings should have begun by 15 January. The notice of motion was issued on 17 February, more than a month after that deadline.
The mother’s explanation described steps taken after a 30 January letter notifying her that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order. The judge found that no explanation had been given for the earlier period, when she could have sought advice from the solicitor who had represented her. The court also noted that her initial steps after the deportation letter concerned seeking leave to remain on humanitarian grounds, rather than judicial review.
The judge considered the short statutory deadline, the length and explanation for the delay, the apparent strength of the proposed grounds, and other circumstances. He described the case as weak at this stage, while expressly declining to decide whether it met the substantial-grounds threshold. He said that even a potentially arguable case would not, by itself, justify extending time.
The court refused an extension of time and consequently refused leave to seek the requested reliefs. The judgment records that the court had no information about whether a separate asylum application had been lodged for the daughter.