The High Court refused a Nigerian mother and her young son an extension of time to bring judicial review proceedings challenging decisions on their refugee claims, subsidiary protection and deportation. The court therefore dismissed the proceedings without granting leave to pursue the proposed challenges.
J.A. said she fled Nigeria after being accused of witchcraft and arrived in Ireland in November 2005. Her son, D.A., was born in Ireland two days later. At her asylum interview, she chose to include him in her claim. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that neither be recognised as a refugee, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal later upheld that recommendation for both applicants.
The Minister refused their applications for subsidiary protection and made deportation orders dated 9 September 2008. After the family’s solicitor submitted further representations, the case was reconsidered and the orders were affirmed, according to evidence before the court.
The applicants sought to challenge the decisions after the statutory 14-day period for judicial review had passed. The delay was about 15 months in relation to the Tribunal decision and about two and a half years in relation to the Commissioner’s decision concerning D.A. The respondents opposed extending the deadline.
The court considered the mother’s and child’s applications separately. It noted that both had access to the Refugee Legal Service during the relevant period and that the mother’s affidavit did not identify additional facts about her son’s fear of persecution that might have changed the outcome of his claim. The judge found that his proposed challenge to the lack of a separate inquiry was arguable at best, but did not show substantial grounds for review.
The court also rejected the proposed challenge based on the fact that a different officer prepared the Commissioner’s report from the officer who conducted the interview. It found that the credibility findings at issue did not depend on how the mother presented her evidence in the interview.
The applicants’ strongest proposed ground concerned the Tribunal member who decided their paper appeal despite a prior request that he not do so. The judge said the complaint might have supported leave if brought in time. However, the applicants had not challenged the decision promptly, and the court found no manifest injustice in refusing an extension. The judge concluded that neither applicant had shown good and sufficient reason for the delay and dismissed the proceedings.