The High Court refused an applicant leave to challenge decisions refusing his refugee and subsidiary protection claims and making a deportation order, finding that the required grounds had not been established.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2012, Ms Justice M. H. Clark said the applicant had been informed in August 2010 that his refugee claim was refused. He then sought subsidiary protection and humanitarian leave to remain. After subsidiary protection was refused, a deportation order was made. An earlier application for an injunction to prevent deportation had been refused, though the applicant remained in Ireland.
The applicant began judicial review proceedings in November 2011, challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, the subsidiary protection decision and the deportation order. The court held that reopening the Tribunal challenge at that stage would involve procedural backtracking and disregard the ordinary time limits. The applicant had been legally represented and had chosen to pursue subsidiary protection, which the judge described as an implicit acceptance of the Tribunal’s decision. The court said he had not explained why that informed choice should be undone.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal lacked independence and impartiality and therefore did not provide an effective remedy under EU asylum procedures. He also argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Donegan & Gallagher v Dublin City Council had reopened whether judicial review was an effective remedy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge rejected both arguments. She said Donegan concerned the specific process for evicting tenants under housing legislation and did not apply to asylum and immigration procedures, where factual disputes could be heard by the Tribunal and its findings reviewed by the High Court. She also said the Court of Justice’s ruling in Diouf did not alter the established body of Irish case law on judicial review.
Written submissions also addressed the indefinite nature of the deportation order by reference to Article 8 of the Convention, but that argument was not pursued at the hearing. The court noted there was no evidential basis to conclude the applicant had private or family life in Ireland.
The court refused the application. It found no substantial grounds warranting leave to challenge the Tribunal decision or deportation order, and no arguable grounds for challenging the subsidiary protection decision. The ruling determined the application for leave; it did not grant leave to bring those challenges.