O (E) & O (PA)(A Minor) v Min for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Ryan
• Judgment Date: 22 October 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 512
• Court: High Court
• Date: 22 October 2010

[2010] IEHC 512

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 204 JR/2010]

O (E) & O (PA)(A Minor) v Min for Justice

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Between

E O AND P A O (A MINOR)

Applicants

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

Respondent

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5

MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP SUPREME 21.1.2010 2010 IESC 3

EDOSA v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HIGH 25.3.2010 2010/18/4390 2010 IEHC 94

UGBO & BUCKLEY v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 5.3.2010 2010/50/12689 2010 IEHC 80

O v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS [BABY O CASE] 2002 2 IR 169 2003 1 ILRM 241 2002/3/501

IMMIGRATION LAW

Deportation order

Revocation - Police protection - Position of cults - Internal relocation - Subsidiary protection - Prohibition of refoulement - Separation of the family - Country of origin information - Whether breach of fair procedures - Whether second applicant denied individual assessment - Whether substantial grounds - Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3, [2010] 2 IR 701; Edosa v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 94, (Unrep, HC, Cooke J, 25/3/2010); Ugbo v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 80, (Unrep, HC, Hanna J, 5/3/2010) and Baby O v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2002] 2 IR 169 considered - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 5- Application refused (2010/204JR - Ryan J - 22/10/2010) [2010] IEHC 512

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

Facts The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the respondent to make deportation orders in respect of them. The first applicant was a national of Nigeria and her daughter, the second applicant, was born in the State. It was contended the deportation order primarily on the basis of the Meadows decision and in particular whether it was possible to discern the rationale of the Minister's decision that no risk of refoulement arose and that this meant there was a fundamental defect in the conclusion of the Minister. In addition it was submitted that it was possible that the respondent could have made a deportation order in respect of one applicant but declined to do so in the case of the other. Although the two cases were considered separately, the concluding parts of each report concerning the proposed deportation referred to the other case.

Held by Ryan J in refusing the relief sought. Since the two cases concerned a mother and her four-year-old daughter, it would have been remiss if they had not referred to each other. It was quite unreal to suggest that one conclusion could have been reached in one case and a different one in the other. The safety of the applicants was raised in their submissions and was fully dealt with in the consideration of the case. For reasons which had been clearly set out the Minister had decided that repatriation would not breach s.5 of the Refugee Act 1996.

Reporter: R.F.

1 This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ('the Minister') to make deportation orders in respect of the two named applicants. Mr John Noonan B.L. appeared for the applicants and Ms Siobhán Stack B.L. appeared for the respondent. The hearing took place on 8 October 2010.

2 The first applicant ('the mother') is a national of Nigeria who arrived in the State on or about 19 December 2005. She applied for asylum but was unsuccessful. She claimed that she is a Christian and that she became pregnant and her family drove her from the family home and she went to live with her boyfriend. This boyfriend was a member of a secret cult and the members of this cult wanted her to sacrifice her baby. She claimed she fled and the cult started searching for her boyfriend. Her daughter, the second applicant, was born in the State on 17 January 2006. The Minister rejected an application for subsidiary protection on behalf of the first applicant on 13 August 2009, and on behalf of the second applicant on 26 January 2010. The first applicant made submissions on 12 October 2009 as to why the two applicants should not be deported.

3 On 3 February 2010 the Minister notified...