130 likes | 225 Views
ALJ and A, B and C's Application for Judicial Review, [2013] NIQB 88 Access judgment here. Kirsty Linkin Law Centre (NI) 2014. The facts. ALJ and her 3 children, A, B and C Sudanese Non-Arab Darfuris Claimed asylum in Ireland - refused Race and Political opinion Appealed - refused
E N D
ALJ and A, B and C's Application for Judicial Review, [2013] NIQB 88Access judgment here Kirsty Linkin Law Centre (NI) 2014
The facts • ALJ and her 3 children, A, B and C • Sudanese Non-Arab Darfuris • Claimed asylum in Ireland - refused • Race and Political opinion • Appealed - refused • Applied for Subsidiary Protection
The facts 2 • Balseskin Reception Centre, Finglas • Caravan • Communal canteen • Attempted sexual assault • Hibernian Hotel, Portlaoise • ALJ and B one room, A and C one bed • Dirty, cold, damp, rats • Asthma
The facts 3 • Hostel, Cork • One room • Rejected • Hibernian Hotel, Portlaoise • ALJ and B one room, A and C one bed • Dirty, cold, damp, rats • Asthma • Co West Meath • Far from the children's schools/college
The facts 4 • Travelled to Northern Ireland and claimed asylum 25 July 2011 • UKBA request, Ireland accepted • Removal directions made for ALJ and family to be removed to Ireland • ALJ applied for judicial review
The legal context • Council Regulation No 343/2003 (“Dublin II Regulation”) • Article 3(2) discretion • NS v UK [2011] EUECJ Case C‑411/10 • “Systemic deficiency” • European Charter of Fundamental Rights – Arts 1, 4, and 7
The legal context 2 • Council Directive 2003/9/EC (“Minimum Standards Directive”) • Section 55 BCIA 2009
The legal context 3 • Approx 40 cases were held in abeyance pending judgment in ALJ • Removals under Dublin II Regulation • Including approx 4 other families • Mixed nationalities
Stephens J's findings “It is considered that your client and her family will have the same opportunities for development, and will receive the same level of support, in Ireland.” (UKBA Sep 2011) “Any analysis of the best interests of the children would have led to the inevitable conclusion that the best interests of the children favoured remaining in Northern Ireland.” (Stephens J, para 102)
Stephens J's findings 2 • Breach of Charter rights • deferred to the courts of Ireland • declined to find “systemic deficiency” • Minimum Standards Directive – not met • Failed in duty under s55 BCIA 2009 • Or Irrational (Wednesbury unreasonable)
Stephens J's findings 3 • Financial independence • Time spent in Direct Provision • Prospect of work • Well-being of primary carer • Accommodation – separate, quality • Health issues in Direct Provision • Procedural issues in asylum decision system
Impact • ALJ and family accepted into asylum system in UK • Other families with children • reconsideration • Other families in the future • Impetus for change
Further developments • Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”) • EM (Eritrea) and ors v SSHD [2014] UKSC 12 • Access judgment here