The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of deportation orders made against a Nigerian mother and her minor son, finding that the Minister’s reports explained the non-refoulement assessments and that the mother had not justified her delay in challenging her order.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Ryan on 15 October 2010, concerned orders dated 23 November 2005 for the mother and 23 February 2010 for her son. The mother had claimed asylum on grounds including risk of female genital mutilation and trafficking for sexual exploitation. Her claim was refused, as was her later subsidiary protection application. Her son’s asylum and subsidiary protection claims were also refused.
The applicants argued that the Minister had not given adequate reasons for concluding that deportation would not breach the prohibition on refoulement. They relied principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which had criticised the phrase “Refoulement was not found to be an issue in this case” where the decision did not reveal its rationale. They also argued that their asylum claims had been unlawfully prioritised and that judicial review did not provide an effective remedy under the EU Procedures Directive.
Justice Ryan rejected the Directive argument. The mother’s deportation order predated the Directive’s application, while the cited High Court case concerned a remedy against an initial asylum decision, not a deportation order. The son had completed the Refugee Appeals Tribunal process, and the earlier case had refused leave to challenge an initial decision in that circumstance.
On the Meadows argument, the judge said the applicants had not put forward a real risk of refoulement. Even so, the Minister had examined the issue: the mother’s report addressed female genital mutilation, and the son’s file considered the human rights situation in Nigeria and cited country-of-origin information. The judge held that the report made the rationale apparent: the available information did not support an opinion that their lives or freedom would be threatened, so deportation would not breach section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The court said the reasoning had to be assessed in context, rather than by focusing only on the wording used.
The judge allowed the son an extension of about 10 days to bring proceedings. The mother’s order had been notified in November 2005, but she began these proceedings on 12 March 2010, more than four years later. The judge found her explanation inadequate and noted that earlier 2007 proceedings had sought to enable a subsidiary protection application without challenging the deportation order. He refused an extension for her and, ultimately, refused the application for leave.