The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani man’s challenge to a decision refusing him permission to remain in Ireland, and released the Minister for Justice and Equality from an undertaking not to deport him.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys rejected the applicant’s grounds concerning the Minister’s review under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015. The court found that the applicant had not shown that relevant matters were left unconsidered, that insufficient weight was given to a job offer and character references, or that the Minister acted unfairly by relying on his move from reception accommodation to private rental accommodation.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in June 2015 and applied for asylum. After the International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeals in April 2018, he sought a review of the decision not to grant permission to remain. The International Protection Office refused permission on review on 8 August 2018. A deportation order was made on 19 November 2018 and notified to him later that month.
The applicant argued that he had not been given an opportunity to explain his move into private accommodation and how he supported himself. The judge said the matters were within the applicant’s knowledge, were not central to the decision, and had not been disputed. The applicant had also not explained what he would have said if asked. The judge said he would refuse relief on a discretionary basis even if there had been a breach of a duty to invite an explanation.
The judgment also rejected arguments about the treatment of the applicant’s private life and Article 8 rights. The judge said the review decision showed that the statutory factors and Article 8 had been considered. An alleged child in the UK was not mentioned in the applicant’s handwritten review application, and the court noted there had been no contact with the child’s mother for four years and no evidence of contact with the child.
The judge noted that the Minister had questioned the authenticity of a purported job offer from Four Star Pizza, but said the document had not been formally investigated and that he did not hold the issue specifically against the applicant.
The court dismissed the proceedings and released the respondent from the undertaking not to deport the applicant. It noted that the respondent was not pursuing an objection based on delay.