The High Court refused a judicial review challenge by a mother and her two daughters to decisions refusing their applications for Irish certificates of naturalisation. The court did not determine whether the applicants were stateless under international law or for the Minister’s policy. It said that question should first be considered by the Minister on the basis of new applications containing the information and expert evidence later put before the court.
The applicants, born in Latvia and described in their applications as Latvian nationals of Russian ethnicity, applied for naturalisation in 2005. Their passports were issued by the Republic of Latvia and described as “Alien’s Passport”. The Minister refused certificates for the mother and older daughter in March 2009, and for the younger daughter in June 2009. The stated basis was that they had received State financial support and did not belong to a category the Minister accepted could rely on such support, including refugees and stateless persons.
After the refusals, the applicants’ solicitor argued that they should be treated as stateless because Latvian authorities classified them as “aliens” and they held alien passports. The applicants then sought judicial review, arguing that the Minister had wrongly treated them as not stateless and had failed to investigate their status adequately.
The parties submitted conflicting expert material about Latvia’s distinct “non-citizen” status, which was created under Latvian law in 1995. The judgment described the issue as complex and potentially novel. It noted evidence about restrictions faced by non-citizens and the Latvian authorities’ position that people covered by the non-citizens law could not be regarded as stateless under Latvia’s 2004 law. The court stressed that it was not deciding their status.
Justice Cooke said the original applications had identified the applicants as Latvian, with the qualification “ethnic Russian”; the statelessness argument was raised only after the refusals. He also said the Minister’s decisions had not been made on the later information and expert evidence. The central stated reason for refusal was receipt of social welfare support, not a finding that the applicants were not stateless.
The court held that the Minister had not been required to inquire into statelessness from the information in the original applications. The refusal letters also said applicants could apply again, taking account of the reasons given. In the court’s view, the applicants needed a decision on new applications incorporating the additional information, rather than reconsideration of the original ones.
The High Court concluded that the judicial review application was unnecessary and unfounded. It refused the challenge, leaving the question of the applicants’ status for the Minister to decide in the first instance. The judgment did not grant naturalisation or determine the statelessness issue.