The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by Mohammed Abuissa to the Minister for Justice’s refusal to grant him a certificate of naturalisation without giving reasons. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice M. H. Clark on 1 July 2010, concluded that the application for relief failed.
The Minister refused Abuissa’s application on 6 February 2009, stating only that the decision was made in the Minister’s “absolute discretion”. Abuissa sought an order quashing that decision and directing the Minister to reconsider. He argued that fairness required reasons so he could understand and challenge the refusal. He also relied on Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Freedom of Information Act.
The judgment records that Abuissa had been granted refugee status following a successful appeal from a negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. He said he wanted naturalisation, among other reasons, to make travel in the Middle East easier while sourcing ingredients for his Dublin restaurant. The court noted that the Minister did not dispute that he met the ordinary statutory conditions for naturalisation; the refusal was made under the Minister’s discretionary power.
The court held that the governing law did not require reasons for every refusal made under that power. It relied on the earlier decision in Pok Sun Shum, which recognised that the discretion must still be exercised fairly and in accordance with natural justice, but found no general duty to disclose reasons in every case. The judgment said a decision could be challenged in circumstances including demonstrated unfairness or bad faith, but no allegation of bad faith had been made here.
The judge distinguished earlier naturalisation cases cited by Abuissa, finding that they concerned refusals based on whether statutory conditions had been met, rather than a refusal made in the Minister’s absolute discretion. The court also rejected the argument that Article 34 required the Minister to naturalise refugees: it found that the Convention provision had not been incorporated into domestic law and did not mandate naturalisation. On the Freedom of Information argument, it concluded that the legislation did not invariably require reasons where exemptions relating to security, defence or international relations applied.
The court said it might have been preferable for reasons to have been given, but held that the law supported the Minister’s position. It dismissed the application and did not grant the relief sought. Clark J. added that any change to require reasons in such cases was for the legislature to make.