Court move to stop deportation of woman and daughters fails

A HIGH Court judge yesterday rejected an application by a Sligo-based Nigerian woman for an injunction restraining her family's deportation.

Pamela Izevbekhai argued that the Irish courts had not yet determined a judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice's refusal last March to consider her claim for "subsidiary protection" here.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled the exceptional circumstances that would merit granting an injunction restraining the deportation of Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters, Naomi (7) and Jemima (6) did not exist.

Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that Ms Izevbekhai had failed to make out a fair question to be tried in relation to the subsidiary protection arguments and failed to show the family would suffer irreparable damage if returned to Nigeria.

Ms Izevbekhai - who says she has already lost a baby daughter to forced female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria - and her two children were ordered to report to Balseskin reception centre, Co Dublin.

An earlier judicial review challenge by Ms Izevbekhai to the deportation order was rejected by Mr Justice Kevin Feeney last January and last March he refused the necessary permission to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

Ms Izevbekhai's lawyers have appealed that refusal to the European Court of Human Rights.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Hedigan said the balance of convenience favoured the enforcement of the deportation orders as it was important to maintain the integrity of the State's asylum system. He said the full judicial review hearing would be based on written documents with no need for the family to be present.

The court should only interfere with the enforcement of valid deportation orders where "exceptional circumstances exist" but no such conditions arose here, he said.

To do otherwise would "usurp" the function assigned to the asylum system, he added.

Additional information submitted to the Minister in support of the application for subsidiary protection did not amount to new or altered facts or circumstances, the judge said.

At best, the information could only be said to add to or strengthen "a well-known and frequently made case".

The judge said the family had been through all the stages of the asylum process and had had every opportunity to make out a case for refugee status.

The High Court had previously found that an analysis of their files prior to making the deportation orders was conducted in accordance with fair procedures.

While the family's fear of FGM may have been strengthened by additional material submitted in support of their application for subsidiary protection, "the very same fear and set of circumstances" was previously raised with the Minister and was consistently found to be lacking "an objective basis", he said.

He said the family's claim had been assessed and considered by a significant number of decision makers - the Refugee Appeals Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister - and the court had only a limited role when it came to reviewing those previous decisions.