The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian mother and child’s challenge to the rejection of their international protection appeal, finding that the grounds pursued in court were not made out. It also released the respondents from undertakings concerning enforcement of the applicants’ deportation orders, which remain in force.
The mother said she had faced death threats from her father’s relatives after his death in 2000 and that her brother was killed in the dispute. The judgment records that she remained in Nigeria for nine years afterwards, moved to the UK on a valid visa in 2009 without claiming asylum, and came to Ireland unlawfully in late 2012. Her child was born in Ireland in July 2013.
Deportation orders were issued on 2 May 2016. The applicants applied for international protection later that month. The International Protection Office rejected their claims in July 2017, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected their appeal after an oral hearing. The mother’s account of threats and past persecution was rejected by the tribunal; that credibility finding was not challenged in the judicial review.
The court proceedings focused on whether the tribunal had properly considered the child’s best interests and possible future harm. The judge said the applicants’ claim that the tribunal treated the best interests principle as limited to procedure misrepresented its decision. He found that, where the principle was relevant, the tribunal had taken it into account.
The applicants also argued that the child could face persecution or serious harm if returned to Nigeria, including as a child in destitution or through possible separation from the mother. The judge said the proposed social group had not been put to the tribunal and was raised for the first time in court. He also noted the tribunal had rejected the asserted risk of separation and had recorded that the mother obtained work in Nigeria for nine years after the alleged persecution. The court said poverty alone did not establish a basis for international protection.
The High Court dismissed the proceedings. It did not overturn the tribunal decision or the deportation orders; it ordered that the respondents be released from any undertakings regarding enforcement of those orders.