The High Court has refused an Albanian man’s application to quash a decision refusing him permission to remain in Ireland and a deportation order that followed. The court found that none of his grounds for judicial review had been made out and ordered him to pay the respondent’s costs.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as MK, entered Ireland in September 2016 as an unaccompanied minor and sought international protection. After his protection claim was rejected, he asked for a review of the refusal of permission to remain. He relied on his time in Ireland, his work at the Beachcomber restaurant in Malahide, his integration and support letters. A deportation order issued in February 2020.
The challenge was limited to the review decision under section 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015 and the deportation order. The original refusal of permission to remain was not challenged. MK argued, among other things, that the decision maker should have assessed proportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that adequate reasons were not given, and that a case worker who was also an International Protection Officer could not lawfully make the review decision for the Minister.
The court rejected the Article 8 argument. It held that, in general, a person whose immigration status was precarious could rely on private or family life built up during that period only in exceptional circumstances. It found that the cited European case law did not change that approach and that the applicant’s permission to access the labour market did not alter his residence status. As Article 8 was not engaged on the circumstances before it, the court found no requirement for a proportionality assessment or a related claim under Article 14 or the Constitution.
The judge accepted that the review decision did not itself explain why permission was refused. But she found that the original decision’s reasons carried through to the review: the Minister had concluded that MK’s personal circumstances did not outweigh the State’s interest in maintaining immigration controls and protecting its economic well-being. The court therefore rejected the claim that the review decision gave inadequate reasons.
It also found that the 2015 Act did not prevent an International Protection Officer from separately acting as an officer of the Minister when deciding permission-to-remain cases. The judgment described the protection and permission decisions as distinct functions, handled in separate units, and found no evidence that the system blurred their roles. The court further found no error on the face of the record: the review was signed by a case worker, and the notification letter told MK that the Minister had made the decision.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not set out a new deportation decision; it rejects the challenge to the review decision and the deportation order.