C.I.E. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 27 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 302
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 July 2007
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 270 JR/2006

E (CI) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS

Between:

C. I. E.

Applicant

And

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Attorney General, Ireland

Respondents

[2007] IEHC 302

Record Number: No. 270 JR/2006

THE HIGH COURT

IMMIGRATION LAW

Deportation

Leave to remain - Child born after IBC scheme - Citizenship of child - Consideration of material - Country of origin information - Breach of fair procedures - Statutory prerequisites to deportation order - Irrationality - Whether substantial grounds for review - Kouaype v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 380 (Unrep, Clarke J, 9/11/2005) - Immigration Act 1999 (No 22 ), s 3 - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 5 - Leave refused (2006/270JR - Peart J - 27/7/2007) [2007] IEHC 302

E (CI) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

The applicant from Nigeria was mother to a child born in 2005 outside the remit of the Irish Born Child Scheme. The applicant made representations for humanitarian leave to remain pursuant to s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and alleged that important country of origin information had been overlooked and that there had been a breach of fair procedures

Held by Peart J., refusing leave for judicial review, that there had been no breach of fair procedures and the Minister had not failed to properly consider country of origin information.

Reporter: E.F

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The first named applicant is Nigerian, and is the mother of the second named applicant who was born in Ireland on the [ ] October 2005 and therefore is not an Irish citizen, and is not within the IBC05 scheme for applications for residency under that scheme.

2 On arrival in this country on or about December 2004 the first named applicant made an application for a declaration of refugee status in order to avoid being married against her will to a man in Nigeria to whom she was allegedly promised in marriage by her father when she was six years old. She was interviewed in the normal way after she had completed the usual questionnaire. Shortly after her arrival she became pregnant and gave birth to the second named applicant on the [ ] October 2005. In the meantime, a report under s. 13 of the Refugee Act1996, as amended was prepared, leading to a recommendation on the 10th February 2005 by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner that she be not declared a refugee. She was notified of that recommendation by letter dated 14th February 2005 and was given a copy of the said report.

3 The first named applicant availed of her entitlement to appeal this recommendation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. That appeal was unsuccessful, and the recommendation made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was affirmed. She received a copy of that Decision which was made on the 26th May 2005 with as letter dated 13th September 2005, which in the usual way informed her of the Minister's proposal to make a deportation order, and of the options then open to her, one of which was to make representations under s. 3 of the Immigration Act,1999 for what is commonly known as "humanitarian leave to remain".

4 She opted to submit such representations, and her solicitor did this by a lengthy letter dated 2nd October 2005. Much of that letter went over the grounds on which refugee status had already been refused, including the forced marriage referred to already. However these representations also referred to the fact that the first named applicant was pregnant and that her child was due in about three weeks from the date of the letter. The letter stated that the position of such a child would have to be considered, since if returned to Nigeria with mother he/she would be left without a mother if mother was killed, would be exposed to aids, trafficking, female genital mutilation, poverty, and insecurity. This letter went on to refer to the fear on the part of the first named applicant herself of female genital mutilation as a consequence of being returned to Nigeria. This had never been part of her original application for refugee status, and appears to have been mentioned for the first time by her solicitor in his letter making these representations. Further material and representations were forwarded on the 13th October 2005, 18th February 2006.

5 Her s.3 application was examined in due course by a first supervisor and by a second supervisor in the Minister's Department. The examination by the former is dated 18th January 2006, which is before the final submission was received in the Department by letter dated 18th February 2006. The second examination is dated 24th January 2006, also before the receipt of the representations dated 18th February 2006. On the 6th February 2006, a principal Officer, Dermot Cassidy considered the papers in the case and recommended that the Minister sign...