The High Court rejected Q.W.’s judicial review challenge to a deportation order, finding that the Minister had properly served the proposal to deport him at the last address he had registered with immigration authorities.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hogan on 17 July 2012, concerned whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence had met the statutory service requirements. The case was heard on a telescoped basis, and the court identified service of the deportation proposal as the central issue.
Q.W., a Chinese national, came to Ireland in 2004 on a student visa. His permission to remain expired in July 2006. The last address he had supplied to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) was 33 Abbeygate Street, Galway. He later moved, but did not update that registered address.
In June 2009, the Minister sent a proposal to deport Q.W. to the Abbeygate Street address, inviting representations. He did not respond. The judgment records that he almost certainly did not receive the correspondence. By May 2010, GNIB had required him to live at an address on Forster Street, Galway, but that did not alter the address he had registered for service.
The court considered section 6(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1999, which provided for service by registered post at the address most recently furnished to the registration officer. It also held that the registration obligation under the Aliens Order 1946 remained in force. A later address provided by Q.W.’s solicitors in June 2011 counted as an address for service from then on, but did not determine whether the 2009 proposal had been properly served.
The judgment noted that Q.W. was deported on 16 November 2011. An earlier application for an interlocutory injunction to stop the deportation had been refused because the application was made late and the balance of convenience favoured refusing relief; the judge said his jurisdiction at that stage was uncertain.
The court concluded that the Minister had complied with the statutory service requirements by sending the proposal to Q.W.’s last registered address. It held that the judicial review application against the deportation order therefore failed. The judgment did not set aside the order or grant other relief.