Deportation Order issued against Third Country National on basis of Failure to Establish ‘Family Life’ Within the State

Case Study: K.A (Nigeria) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2012] IEHC 109

This case concerned an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision to issue a deportation order against the applicant. The applicant argued that the Minister erred in law in failing to assess the manner in which the deportation order would affect the applicant’s entitlement to respect for her family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The applicant, a Nigerian national, arrived in the state in November 2007 as an unaccompanied minor just before her fifteenth birthday. The applicant then resided with her aunt who was already living in the state with her two children. The applicant claimed she had been living with her grandparents before leaving Nigeria and she came to Ireland for a ‘better life’. Following the failure of her asylum claim and the rejection of her application for subsidiary protection, the Minister considered representations made for leave to remain in the state and then issued a deportation order against the applicant, which is now sought to be challenged.

The essential basis of the applicant’s application for leave to remain was that her aunt and two daughters had come to regard her as a member of their family, which is protected under Article 8 of the Convention. This argument was supplemented by information such as the fact that she was preparing to sit the leaving certificate and she was an active member of her church and youth group. The essential basis the Minister relied on in deciding that her Article 8 family rights would not be infringed was the fact that the applicant was now an adult aged eighteen, had been living in the state for a relatively short period of time during which she was pursuing an asylum application and was living with non-direct relatives.

The issued raised is thus whether the assessment made by the Minister is a rational one having regard to the information available as to the applicant’s circumstances and whether it is compatible with the criteria required to be applied by law in assessing ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8.

The High Court considered a number of previous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the question of expulsion.  A clear approach emerged that to constitute family life for the purposes of Article 8, mere legal residence over a period is insufficient. There must be evidence that the individual established personal roots in the contracting state through personal relationships, education, employment or other indicators such that the contracting state has become the real centre of the individual’s way of life.

The High Court applied these criteria to the circumstances of the case. It was found that the conclusion reached by the Minister was not wrong in relation to family life.   The Court outlined the applicant’s position.

Her family life for fifteen years was that spent with her grandparents and other relatives in Nigeria. Her aunt had had no involvement in the Applicants life prior to her coming to Ireland. There was doubt as to the family ties between the applicant and her aunt as her aunt had never mentioned the applicant in her application for permission to remain. Finally, although the applicant asserts that her aunt regards her as her daughter, the practical quality of the relationship has not been expanded on or explained in evidence.

In these circumstances, the High Court was satisfied that no stateable case had been made that the Minister erred or reached an unreasonable conclusion in deciding that the these circumstances did not amount to "family life" in the sense of a settled way of life in an established family group, in which there are subsisting emotional ties between the applicant and her aunt and younger cousins. For all of these reasons the application for leave was refused.

Brophy Solicitors
11.05.12

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

This October saw Ireland examined for the first time by other United Nations (UN) countries on our human rights record. The process is called Universal Periodic Review.  It is a process where the human rights record of the United Nations 192 member states are reviewed and assessed every four years. It is an important part of reminding states of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. As noted by Ban Ki – moon, UN secretary General, the Universal Periodic Review ‘has great potential to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world.’ 

Minister Alan Shatter personally attended the United Nations Geneva Head Quarters on the 6^th October 2011 to answer questions on Ireland’s human rights record as Ireland submitted to its first ever ‘Universal Periodic Review’. In his opening address, Minister Shatter made specific references to both the positives and negatives of Ireland’s human rights record. Of particular interest to us was his specific reference to the unacceptable delays in the Naturalization process. He confirmed that he was taking steps to rectify this problem, and aimed in due course to have all applications dealt with within a six month period. He acknowledged criticism for the lack of appeal process to decisions of Naturalization applications, but confirmed that he reviewed all decisions and therefore there was no higher authority to determine appeals.  He cited the new Citizenship ceremonies as a positive step towards welcoming and celebrating newly declared citizens. 

Questions were then put to the Minister from each represented member state focusing on human rights issues of concern in Ireland today including children’s rights, access to abortion and the ABC judgment, prison violence, overcrowding and sanitation and traveller’s rights. The review marked an opportunity for people in Ireland to highlight important human rights issues which face the country, and to encourage Ireland to promise to address these issues in front of an audience of their international peers.

The Minister made some positive statements such as confirming that a Referendum on children’s rights would be held early in 2012 in order to bring Ireland into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He acknowledged the urgent need to modernise our mental capacity legislation in order to protect those who are vulnerable in society. He also outlined a commitment to ratify the optional protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which would allow individuals to complain about alleged violations of these rights at an international level.

However, it has been noted that the Minister was short on detail in response to questions on other issues that are related to human rights protection in Ireland. For instance, the Minister noted the government are preparing legislation to enable it to ratify the Optional Protocol under the UN Convention against Torture. This is an important development and would require the establishment of a national body to monitor places of detention. However, the Minister failed to go into detail on the substance of that legislation or to give any timeline for its implementation. Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) Director Mark Kelly has commented that while Mr. Shatter appears to be sincere in his intentions, concrete action will be required to meet the promises made by Mr. Shatter at the review.

On the 11^th October, the UN Human Rights Council adopted its ‘Outcome Report’ on Ireland. This contained a summary of what was discussed at the hearing and a list of recommendations for Ireland to improve the human rights situation. This will be formally adopted at a hearing in March 2012, where Ireland, The United Nations Human Rights Council, and NGOs will be able to discuss the report and the obligations which Ireland are required to meet.  Once this report is formally adopted, it will form the basis on which Ireland’s human rights performance will be measured for the coming 4 years.

We believe that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an essential part of improving the human rights situation in all countries and to address human rights violations whenever they occur. It has allowed for civil society to contribute to the examination of Ireland by highlighting the human rights issues of concern which are facing Ireland today and providing evidence of this to the United Nations about how they are affecting people on the ground.

Brophy Solicitors

13.10.11

NEED FOR EFFECTIVE ASYLUM REFORM

In an opinion piece in today’s Irish Times, Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness highlights the staggering backlog of 1,400 asylum and immigration cases waiting to be heard in the High Court and calls for a robust asylum system that will save time, money and promote fairness.

Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness highlights the serious shortcomings of the current asylum process. She notes that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirms more than 95 per cent negative decisions; it lacks transparency, independence and proper reasoning in its decisions. This gives rise to the high number of aggrieved applicant seeking redress by way of judicial review in the High Court. 

There are delays of approximately 27 months for initial hearing of such cases in the High Court.  The current system is most disastrous for the applicants with genuinely strong cases, such that they should have been granted refugee status at the outset but through errors on the part of the Tribunal Member, their application was wrongfully refused. There are many asylum applicants from countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan, who have come from situations of serious harm or torture, and they are now caught in an administrative nightmare of waiting in High Court lists, while living in state funded direct provision accommodation centres.  These applicants will be left waiting for many years. 

In one case taken by this office, our client has gone through the whole High Court Judicial Review process on two occasions, and is now awaiting a third determination by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. We have no doubt to the genuine nature of his case, but very unfortunately for this man, he has had two very poor quality Tribunal decisions and has been in the system for many years. There are many more asylum seekers like him.

It is well established that such seemingly endless waiting periods can have serious impacts on the mental well being of asylum seekers. However, there is little point in raising such points in the High Court in attempt to have certain vulnerable applicants’ case accelerated with priority. It has been indicated by one of the High Court judges that anything bar a life-threatening illness would fail to achieve priority in the List.

Such a system creates a profound sense of hopelessness, if not depression, amongst the applicants who are waiting years to have their cases heard. The situation in Ireland in respect of these delays is now worse than in Greece, a country which was recently found by the European Court of Human Rights to be so bad that asylum seekers could not obtain a fair hearing and that asylum seekers should not be transferred from other Member States to Greece.

We therefore welcome and support the comments of Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness. Without political intervention and comprehensive new immigration and asylum legislation, it seems that Ireland, like Greece, may be held up before the European Court of Human Rights as a State acting in systematic breach of the fundamental rights of asylum seeker applicants.

Brophy Solicitors

02.09.11