The High Court has refused an extension of time and leave for a mother and her three children to challenge deportation orders concerning two of the children, who were born in Ireland. The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Clark on 16 March 2010, concerned only whether the applicants could bring judicial review proceedings; it did not quash or otherwise set aside the deportation orders.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had decided on 23 February 2009 to make deportation orders against the second and third applicants. Orders had already been made against their mother and eldest son in 2005, and those earlier orders were not challenged. The family are Nigerian nationals. The two children covered by the 2009 decisions were aged one and three when their leave-to-remain applications were considered.
The applications to the Minister relied mainly on humanitarian grounds, including the mother’s community and voluntary work in Galway. They also referred to the younger child’s sickle cell anaemia. The court noted that the submissions did not set out a claim that deportation would expose the children to a risk to life or freedom, provide country information supporting such a risk, or explain whether the child was receiving treatment or could access or afford medical care in Nigeria. The mother’s earlier claim that she and her daughter faced female genital mutilation was not repeated in those representations.
The applicants argued that the Minister had given inadequate reasons for deciding refoulement was not an issue and that the decision was irrational in light of country information. They also argued that the Minister had an independent duty to consider the children’s best interests under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The judge found that the Minister had considered refoulement using the children’s asylum files and country-of-origin information, including information about female genital mutilation, internal relocation and sickle cell treatment. In the circumstances and on the material before the Minister, the applicants had not established substantial grounds to challenge that assessment. The court also rejected the argument based on the Convention, which has not been incorporated into Irish domestic law, and noted that no representations had asked the Minister to consider the children’s best interests under it.
The proceedings were issued 24 days after the statutory 14-day deadline had expired. Although the court said the children’s young ages and dependence on their mother warranted some latitude, it considered the merits before deciding whether to extend time. Having found no substantial grounds to quash the decisions, the court refused the extension and, consequently, refused leave to apply for judicial review.