The High Court refused leave for J. O., an anonymised minor, to seek judicial review of a negative asylum report, finding no good reason to intervene at that stage. The court said her claim should be considered jointly with her mother’s and sisters’ at the appeal stage.
The challenge concerned a report made under section 13 of the Refugee Act 1996. It recommended that J. O. not be declared a refugee, reasoning that she had no well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria because her asserted fear was her mother’s, whose claim had previously received a negative report.
On the child’s behalf, it was argued that her claim had not been individually examined, that no investigation into her personal circumstances had been carried out as required by Regulation 5 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, and that the report gave inadequate reasons. It was also submitted that relying on her parents’ negative recommendations was mistaken while the mother’s appeal and the father’s judicial review remained unresolved.
The judgment records that J. O. was born in Ireland on 12 June 2008, when her mother’s asylum claim already included four older daughters. The mother’s claim was based on alleged threats from her husband’s family because she had given birth only to daughters. The father had made a separate claim based on alleged threats from his own family. The mother’s negative report was then under appeal; the father’s negative recommendation had been upheld on appeal and was the subject of a separate judicial review proceeding.
The court said the child’s circumstances were clear: she had never been to Nigeria, had not met her father’s family, and her claim, as presented, was identical to and dependent on her mother’s. No distinct fact or risk specific to the child had been identified. The judge considered that the authorised officer could rely on the mother’s report, which was annexed to and discussed in the child’s report.
The court also noted that the child could not have been included in the mother’s earlier application because she was born after the reports on both parents. A separate application was therefore needed for her claim to be considered with the family.
The court did not quash the report or decide whether the child qualified for refugee status. It declined to grant leave, concluding that the claim should proceed to consideration jointly with her mother’s and sisters’ at the appeal stage.