The High Court refused an application to invalidate a deportation order made against an infant who had been included as a dependent in her mother’s asylum claim. Ms Justice Clark held that where no separate fear of persecution was asserted for the child, the authorities were not required to conduct an individual investigation or prepare a separate report about her.
The case concerned a Nigerian family. The mother applied for asylum while pregnant, relying on her claim that her uncle was forcing her into a polygamous marriage. Her older child was added to her claim after his birth in Ireland. The father later joined the family and made a separate asylum application, which failed on credibility grounds. Their younger child, H, was born in Ireland in 2007.
The mother submitted an asylum application for H and asked that she be included in the mother’s claim, without being interviewed or considered separately. The court noted that neither child had an independent fear of persecution advanced on their behalf. The mother’s claim was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Minister later refused refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain, and made deportation orders against the mother and both children.
The judicial review before the court was limited to the deportation order against H. The applicants argued that H could not be treated as someone whose asylum application had been refused unless the Commissioner separately investigated her circumstances, interviewed her and prepared a report and recommendation. They also argued that the Tribunal could not include her in the mother’s appeal without that process.
The Minister argued that H was included in a family application and that her mother had expressly asked for her claim to be treated together with her own. The Minister also said the applicants could not use this case to challenge the Tribunal decision, because leave to challenge that decision had previously been refused.
Justice Clark held that the mother’s application was a family claim that included H. The court found that the statutory procedures did not require a separate interview or report for every dependent child where the only claim requiring investigation was the parent’s and no independent fear was asserted for the child. It concluded that the Minister had lawfully refused H’s asylum application for the purposes of the relevant deportation legislation.
The court also noted that the earlier refusal of leave meant the Tribunal decision and related matters could not be challenged in these proceedings. It refused the relief sought. The judgment does not set aside the deportation order.