The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenging the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to grant S.A. permission to remain in Ireland. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys held that the applicant had not shown an entitlement to a proportionality assessment under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the facts of his case.
The court heard that S.A. was born in Pakistan and later became a South African citizen. He said he converted from Islam to Christianity in 2013 and faced danger from the Muslim community in South Africa, prompting him to flee. He arrived in Ireland in November 2013 and was granted a student permission running until December 2016. After being told it would not be extended, he applied for international protection.
The International Protection Office refused his application in November 2018. The Minister refused permission to remain the following day. S.A. appealed the protection refusal, but the International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected that appeal in May 2019. That tribunal decision was not challenged. The Minister had undertaken not to review the permission-to-remain decision while the judicial review was pending.
S.A. argued that the Minister had wrongly treated his residence as precarious, despite his student permission, and had failed to consider private-life rights acquired while he was in Ireland. He also challenged the wording and Article 8 approach in the Minister’s decision.
The judge rejected those arguments. He said student permission was temporary by nature, as was permission to remain while an international protection application was being considered. Combining the two periods did not amount to settled residence. Applying Strasbourg case law and the Court of Appeal’s decision in *Rughoonauth*, he held that private and family life interests built up during non-settled residence generally do not require a proportionality assessment, except in exceptional circumstances. He found that S.A. had not demonstrated such circumstances.
The court dismissed the application at the substantive hearing. It also discharged the Minister from the undertaking not to carry out a review under section 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015, effective five days after electronic delivery of the judgment. The five-day period was provided to give S.A. the equivalent of time to make further submissions after notification of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision.