BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Applicant is a Nigerian national and is an Asylum seeker in the State. She applied for asylum on 14th July, 2000 and acknowledged receipt on that date of documentation which (inter alia) included:-

2. The Applicant in response to questions on a questionnaire stated that she was born 1st January, 1974 and attended the Federal Government College in Lagos from 1986 to 1991 and was the holder of a School Certificate, she described herself in an ‘ASY 1’ form as a trader. I am satisfied on the documentary evidence that she understood importance of informing the Respondent of any change of address.

3. On 21st July, 2000 the Applicant returning the Form of Questionnaire notified her address as of 34/36 Francis St. D. 8. Shortly thereafter she apparently declined accommodation in Limerick which was available in accordance with the Government’s dispersal policy and chose to reside with a friend in Ballinasloe, Co. Galway. The Applicant avers in an affidavit sworn on 20th July, 2001 that she notified the Department of Justice of her address at the time and received her identity card and a letter from the responsible directorate at 19 River View, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway. Mr. Lohan’s affidavit sworn on 30th November, 2001 (for the Respondent) takes issue with the Applicant’s averments and swears that neither in the Asylum Division or Immigration Division of the Respondent can any such record be found and that it is and was the policy of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner that all Applicants must collect their identity card in person from the Refugee Applications Centre and that the Applicant was issued with her identity card when she returned the questionnaire on 21st July, 2000. As the photograph, particulars, card number and an issue date of 14th July, 2000 (set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Mr. Lohan’s affidavit (page 46 of booklet) were, it appears, in existence prior to or at 21st July, 2000 it seems more probable and likely that the identity card was delivered in person when there would be some means of the issuer being satisfied that the recipient was the person whose particulars were on the card rather than send it through the post even on a fully properly notified address.

4. The evidence establishes that letters were sent by pre-paid registered post on 16th and 24th August, 2000 (to the one notified address the Respondent avers it had for the Applicant) to attend for interview on 19th September, 2000. Enquiries made by the Respondent revealed that Special Welfare Payments had been paid up to 13th August, 2000 at the only address that had been notified to the Respondent. The responses on the returned post were ‘gone away’ and ‘left this address’. The Applicant did not attend the scheduled interview and by letter of 11th October, 2000 which was sent by pre-paid registered post advising the Applicant that consideration was then being given of deeming her application abandoned and specifically drawing attention to a paragraph of the Hope Hanlon procedures (paragraph 20) and that if she did not show cause within fourteen days the intended course would follow; again this letter was returned ‘gone away’. A further letter of 6th November, 2000 informed the Applicant that as no reasons had been received from her as to why her application should not be deemed abandoned, her application for refugee status would receive no further consideration in accordance with paragraph 20 of the Hope Hanlon procedures. The Applicant was further informed by letter dated 6th November, 2000 that the Respondent proposed to make a Deportation Order in her regard under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and at the same time, of her entitlement to apply within fifteen days to apply under Section 3 of the 1999 Act for ‘leave to remain on humanitarian grounds’, this letter was also returned to the Respondents marked ‘gone away’. An information pack in relation to the Refugee Act 1996 was sent out on 6th November, 2000 to the Applicant and it too was returned to the Respondent ‘gone away’.

5. On or about 16th November, 2000 the Applicant came to reside at Santa Maria House Dublin for stated but unspecified medical difficulties. On a date after 20th November, 2000 and prior to a date in February, 2001 the Respondent by cross-checking with the Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs established the whereabouts of the Applicant who was receiving Welfare payments at Santa Maria House, 8 Charlemont St.,

6. D. 2. and wrote to her at that address (as per exhibit “BOJ 1”). On 10th/11th February, 2001 the Applicant moved to reside at 125 Clonliffe Rd., D. 3. and did notify the Respondent. The evidence establishes to my satisfaction that as per the Respondent’s records this is the first contact made by the Applicant since 21st July, 2000.

7. Thereafter a Deportation Order was made on 2nd May, 2001 and Notice thereof is dated 25th May, 2001. The application for leave to issue proceeding for Judicial Review is four days out of time. I grant the extension of time sought.

8. The Applicant submits in the legislation on the deeming of service documentation in the statutes infringes principles of natural justice and cites in support Flanagan v. University College Cork [1988] IR 724. In my judgment this is inapposite, for Barron J. noted that plagiarism was criminal in nature and disciplinary procedures adopted in determining the charge should approach those of a court hearing. I have read and considered the judgment which is not to the purpose in the instant case. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360 at 395/6 dealing with the shared responsibility in the asylum procedures states;-

9. The is no question in the instant case of any inhibition of access to the courts and the deeming provisions in 5.6 of the Immigration Act 1999 as amended and extended by 5.10 (c) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 as operated by the Respondent in the instant case were not a denial of the right to fair procedures of the Applicant. I refer in this context to the case of Omijidi v. The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Ors. (unreported 22nd November, 2001) and see no reason to depart from the propositions therein set out.

10. I hold that the Applicants application for asylum was at all times processed in accordance with the relevant administrative procedures and statutory procedures and provisions. The Respondent was entitled to consider the application abandoned and did so by letter dated 6th November, 2000. The Applicant has not shown any substantial grounds for contending that the Deportation Order herein is invalid or ought to be quashed. I refuse leave and dismiss the application. Costs to follow event.