The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of deportation orders made against two Nigerian applicants whose refugee claims had been rejected. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Feeney on 24 May 2007, concerned the applications of A.F.AK. and A.F.AY., who were described in the redacted judgment as the parents of an infant child with separate judicial review proceedings.
Both applicants arrived in Ireland as unaccompanied minors and later had their asylum appeals rejected. They made representations asking to remain temporarily in the State after receiving notice of the Minister’s intention to make deportation orders. The Minister made orders against them in May 2005.
The court said challenges to deportation decisions following failed asylum applications were subject to a narrow scope of review. Applicants had to show substantial grounds, which the judgment described as reasonable, arguable and weighty, rather than trivial or tenuous. In this context, the court said very special circumstances would be required to justify review.
Both applicants argued, among other things, that the State had failed to comply with guidance on separated children. The court found that the guidance did not apply to the circumstances described: both had arrived as minors but reached adulthood within months, and their refugee applications were dealt with when they were adults. The judgment said a request by A.F.AK. for generous treatment as someone who had “aged out” had been included in representations considered by the Minister; no such representation had been made for A.F.AY.
A.F.AK. also challenged his detention for about a month after arriving at Cork Airport in August 2003, and the reference to his arrest and detention in a departmental assessment of character and conduct. The court said any claim about the initial imprisonment should be pursued in separate proceedings, as it had not been raised earlier. It found the assessment’s statement about the arrest and detention factually correct and said it did not establish unfair procedures or reliance on an irrelevant consideration.
The court rejected the claim that the applicants’ status as unaccompanied minors had not been considered, finding that this information was available to the Minister. After reviewing the claims, it refused leave to seek judicial review on all grounds identified in the applications. The ruling decided whether the applicants could bring judicial review proceedings; it did not determine any separate claim about A.F.AK.’s initial detention.