The High Court has refused Hanna Irfan’s application for judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s decision not to revoke a deportation order made against her in 2006. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 23 November 2010, concerned a refusal issued on 1 December 2009.
Ms Irfan, a Christian from Pakistan, arrived in Ireland in 2004 and claimed asylum, saying she feared persecution because of her religion. She described threats from a former employer and his son after she resisted pressure to work on Sundays and convert to Islam. Her asylum claim and appeal were unsuccessful. A deportation order followed after her request to remain on humanitarian grounds was refused.
After an earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, the Minister agreed to reconsider her case. Over nearly four years, Ms Irfan made six further sets of representations, including country information about violence against Christians and documents concerning complaints to police by members of her family. The Minister refused to revoke the order. Ms Irfan sought to have that decision quashed, arguing that the reasons given did not adequately address the prohibition on returning someone to a risk of persecution or serious harm, and that the decision was irrational given the information before the Minister.
The court said the Minister’s role on a revocation request was limited. He had to consider the reasons for revocation fairly and check whether circumstances had changed since the deportation order in a way that could make return unlawful or inappropriate. The case was not a fresh examination of matters already considered during the asylum process unless new information showed a material change.
The court found that the memorandum supporting the refusal addressed the risk to Christians in Pakistan and the family-related material. It concluded that the challenge could not succeed for failure to give reasons. The central question was whether the new information showed a changed circumstance creating a risk to Ms Irfan individually if the existing order were implemented.
The judgment said the country information described risks to Christian minorities generally but did not establish that Ms Irfan would be singled out. It also treated the reported incidents involving her family as consistent with a private dispute; the complaints had been reported to police and, on the face of the material, referred for investigation. The court held that the Minister could take those matters into account and that the refusal was not irrational or unreasonable.
The court refused the judicial review application. It did not quash the Minister’s decision, revoke the deportation order, or make a new decision on the order itself.