The High Court refused a minor applicant leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision upholding the refusal of his asylum claim. The court held that the decision relied on the earlier rejection of his mother’s claim to Somali nationality, on which his own asserted nationality depended.
The child was born in Ireland in 2010, and his mother presented an asylum claim on his behalf. The Tribunal rejected the claim, finding that no further reasons or fears had been advanced for his safety in Somalia and relying on the decision in his mother’s case. The mother’s asylum claim had been rejected after adverse credibility findings, including about her claimed Bajuni background and Somali nationality. Her application for subsidiary protection was also refused.
The child argued that the Tribunal member had failed to make a clear finding about his nationality. His counsel relied on an earlier High Court decision stating that identifying a claimant’s country of origin is fundamental to assessing a refugee claim. The respondents argued that earlier decisions on the mother’s claims had not been challenged and could not be attacked collaterally in the child’s proceedings.
Justice Mac Eochaidh agreed that a decision maker must determine nationality before deciding whether a person is a refugee. But he held that when an asserted nationality is rejected, the decision maker need not identify the claimant’s alternative nationality. In those circumstances, he said, no further analysis of the claim is required.
The judge said the wording of the Tribunal decision could have been clearer, but found it was beyond doubt that the decision maker relied on the rejection of the mother’s claim to be Somali. He concluded that the child’s asserted nationality was wholly dependent on hers and that, because her credibility on that point had been rejected, the child’s claim also failed.
The court did not grant judicial review or make a new finding about the child’s nationality. It refused leave to seek judicial review.