A Sudanese woman living here for 13 years, and whose husband and two young children are Irish citizens, has won her appeal over being refused Irish citizenship.
The three-judge Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that then minister for justice Frances Fitzgerald’s 2016 refusal had unreasonably relied on a view taken in 2010 of absence of “good character” concerning matters that occurred several years earlier.
Among various claims, the woman argued insufficient weight was given to the fact she fled Sudan in 2006 and came here with the assistance of people smugglers.
Giving the court’s judgment, Ms Justice Marie Baker noted the woman sought asylum when she arrived here in 2006 but was refused.
The woman challenged that refusal and got a High Court order requiring that her appeal over the asylum refusal should be heard by a differently constituted Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
In the meantime the woman got married to a man also from Sudan and with refugee status here, in 2008. He got a certificate of naturalisation in 2010, and the couple have two children who were born here and are Irish citizens. Because the woman got a right of residence in 2009 based on marriage, she withdrew her appeal over asylum and applied for naturalisation in 2010.
Difficult circumstances
In 2016 the minister refused naturalisation. Ms Justice Baker said much of the six-year delay was “unexplained” or partly explained by resource difficulties and burden of work in the minister’s department. The woman sought judicial review of the naturalisation refusal, arguing that she was held to a standard of good character that was unreasonable and irrational and the minister failed to have regard to her difficult personal circumstances at the time.
The factual basis for the conclusion she lacked credibility was that she had in 2006 claimed a fear of persecution in Sudan but returned there to visit her family in November 2010 for almost two months. A three-person immigration service team also concluded that a passport on which she relied to ground her application for naturalisation was “issued based on incorrect information”.
The woman argued the fact she returned to Sudan to visit her family, four years after she sought asylum and after getting residency based on marriage, was insufficient to find lack of credibility.
On the passport issue, she said insufficient weight was given to the fact she had travelled here with assistance of people smugglers whom she paid to help her flee Sudan. It was likely the passport on which she travelled had been applied for by those people and she had not seen the relevant application. After the High Court refused judicial review in 2017, she appealed.
Allowing the appeal, Ms Justice Baker said the correct legal approach was to consider whether the minister’s decision was factually sustainable, not unreasonable or not made in reliance on irrelevant considerations.
‘No analysis’
She said “no analysis whatsoever” seemed to have been made of why asylum was sought and the basis for refusing it; whether circumstances in Sudan had changed by 2010; and whether the fact the woman had married and had two young children impacted on her decision to visit her family.
The minister’s finding of absence of good character prejudiced the woman in seeking naturalisation in 2010, and any subsequent application, she said.
The decision was based on conclusions drawn from facts that occurred in the past and without sight of the refugee file from which the reasons for seeking asylum in 2006 might have been gleaned. The passage of time and the absence of this information at the time the refusal decision was made rendered the conclusions unreasonable.
On that basis, the High Court erred in refusing judicial review and the minister’s decision must be quashed, the Court of Appeal held.
