The High Court has refused a mother and her two daughters’ application to quash deportation orders made in 2005, concluding they had not established grounds for judicial review.
Mr Justice Feeney delivered the judgment on 30 January 2008. The applicants, identified in the judgment by initials, sought certiorari quashing the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s decision to deport them. The Health Executive Service was joined as a notice party.
The family arrived in Ireland in January 2005 and applied for refugee status. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed the refusal of their applications in June 2005. The mother had said her daughters faced female genital mutilation if returned to Nigeria, and that her eldest daughter had died after the procedure. The court recorded that the earlier account was not disputed, but the Tribunal had found insufficient objective evidence of a future risk.
The Minister signed deportation orders on 23 November 2005, after departmental officers examined the files and the representations made on the applicants’ behalf. The applicants argued that the Minister should have identified, at least generally, the reasons for concluding they would not face prohibited treatment if returned. They also asked the court to consider additional material, including medical records concerning the deceased child, and determine the risk for itself.
The court rejected those arguments. Applying earlier Supreme Court and High Court decisions, Mr Justice Feeney held that the Minister was not obliged to provide detailed or general reasons explaining why refoulement did not arise. The reports before the Minister showed that the relevant representations and statutory factors had been considered. The court found that the additional material did not materially change the factual picture already before the decision-makers.
The judgment stressed that judicial review was a limited review of the Minister’s decision, not an appeal in which the court could make fresh factual findings. It said statutory routes existed to seek renewed consideration if risk circumstances significantly changed, including applications under the Refugee Act 1996 and a request to revoke a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1999.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not itself decide the applicants’ current risk on return, and the judgment concerned the legality of the Minister’s 23 November 2005 decision.