A TWO-YEAR-OLD boy born in Dublin to parents who are ethnic Serbs and Croatian citizens has, through his mother, secured leave from the High Court to bring an action aimed at overturning the refusal of his bid for refugee status here.
The boy had advanced substantial grounds to show the Refugee Appeals Commissioner's decision was "perverse" in light of up-to-date reports relating to human rights issues affecting ethnic minorities in Croatia, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said.
The child's parents, whose own applications for refugee status have yet to be decided, had argued, because of his ethnicity, he would be persecuted and severely discriminated against if he had to live in Croatia.
The parents claimed they fled Croatia in 2005 because of persecution based on their ethnicity and because they had never received adequate police protection. They came to Ireland and the boy, a citizen of Croatia, was born in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, in January 2006.
Ms Justice Irvine yesterday concluded that the boy had established the substantial grounds required to bring judicial review proceedings aimed at overturning a recommendation of the appeals commissioner of August 2006 that he not be granted refugee status.
The Refugee Appeals Commissioner made the recommendation after finding that his fear of persecution if required to live in Croatia was not well founded.
Having examined the commissioner's decision, the judge ruled there were substantial grounds for concern as to whether or not the commissioner had fully considered all the up-to-date documents relating to Croatia before her.
Even if she did consider all the up-to-date material, as she said she had, the boy had established substantial grounds for the claim that the decision was perverse in the face of the evidence.
There were also substantial grounds to assert the decision should be quashed because of the commissioner's failure to give a reasoned explanation for her rejection of the independent, authoritative and up-to-date country of origin materials submitted on the child's behalf, the judge added.
Substantial country of origin materials put before the Refugee Appeals Commissioner dealt with human rights issues relating to ethnic minorities in Croatia, including reports from Amnesty International (2006), Human Rights Watch (2005) and the United States department of state (2005).
Those reports supported a serious deterioration in 2005 relating to human rights issues in Croatia and reported upon the risk of persecution of ethnic minorities, including Serbs, and, most importantly, the failure of Croatian authorities to adequately react to and investigate the attacks, the judge said.
The Refugee Appeals Commissioner had also heard and apparently accepted evidence of the persecution of the boy's mother and her extended family, by reason of their ethnicity, while they lived in Croatia, the judge added.
Those facts themselves were at least prima facie evidence that whatever policing system operated then, the adequacy of the protection being afforded to ethnic minorities was questionable.
The commissioner had relied upon a 2004 report from the Croatian government but this was substantially less up to date than the reports submitted on behalf of the child and it did not address certain human rights issues or with the ability of the police to protect against any persecution on ethnic grounds.
Given all those factors, Ms Justice Irvine granted leave for judicial review on the grounds outlined. She added that the boy was also entitled, if necessary at a future date, to make arguments as to whether certain of the relevant statutory provisions were unconstitutional.
