The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani man’s challenge to a review decision refusing permission to remain in Ireland and to a second deportation order. The court also released the Minister for Justice and Equality from an undertaking not to deport him while the proceedings were pending.
The judicial review concerned a decision of 18 October 2018, which upheld an earlier refusal of permission to remain and found that repatriation to Pakistan would not breach section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015. A second deportation order was signed on 30 November 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 December. The court had granted leave to bring the case and, on 24 January 2019, the Minister undertook not to deport him until judgment.
The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to properly assess further documents and his private and family rights, and had applied an unlawful “exceptionality” test. He also alleged unfairness in the review and errors concerning the rights of family members in Ireland.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys rejected those grounds. He said the review required the Minister to decide whether to affirm or set aside the earlier permission decision; it did not require a separate determination of each additional document or a narrative response to every submission. The judgment said the documents were recited and the concerns about inconsistent names and evidence of family relationships had been considered. The applicant had not displaced the presumption that the material was properly considered.
The judge said the reference to “exceptional circumstances” was reasoning for refusing to reopen the earlier decision, rather than a legal test. He also found no material change in the applicant’s circumstances sufficient to warrant reversing that decision. The challenge based on family rights also failed: the court noted deficiencies in the pleaded legal basis and said the Minister’s concerns about evidence of the claimed family relationships remained open to him.
The court said it was unnecessary to decide the case on discretion because the challenge failed on its merits. It added that, even if an error had been shown, it would have refused relief on discretionary grounds, citing the applicant’s overstay, failure to comply with the 2009 deportation order and unlawful work, as pleaded by the State. The judge expressly said those remarks did not depend on deciding whether the applicant’s purported marriage in Ireland was real.
The proceedings were dismissed, and the Minister was released from the non-deportation undertaking. The judgment did not itself make a new deportation order.