The High Court has refused orders sought by Ammad Mahfooz to compel the Minister for Justice and Equality to decide applications connected with his deportation and his relationship with Aija Namike, a Latvian national living and working lawfully in Ireland.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 9 December 2019. Mr Mahfooz, a Pakistani national, was deported to Pakistan on 13 June 2019 while his application to revoke the deportation order remained undecided. He had made that application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 on 24 January 2019, citing his relationship with Ms Namike.
He had also applied to be treated as a permitted family member of an EU national. The Minister declined to accept that application on 26 March 2019. Mr Mahfooz sought a review on 11 April, which was still incomplete at the time of the hearing on 20 November.
The couple married in Pakistan on 25 July, and the marriage was registered the next day. Ms Namike later returned to Ireland. Her biological son, described in the judgment as Mr Mahfooz’s stepson, remained in Mr Mahfooz’s care in Pakistan pending an intended reunification in Ireland.
Mr Mahfooz argued that the Minister had failed to determine his revocation application and had not respected procedural rights he claimed while seeking permission to remain as a permitted family member and pursuing a review. He also invoked constitutional and human-rights protections for himself and Ms Namike.
The judge said the deportation order had already been implemented. He noted that earlier High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in the proceedings had rejected procedural rights of the kind claimed. The permitted-family-member application appeared to have been overtaken by the marriage, he said. The judge also observed that delay had not been pleaded and that fresh information submitted by Mr Mahfooz required consideration.
The court said it could not find a failure to consider rights in decisions that had not yet been made. It refused the orders of mandamus. The judge added that even if delay had been pleaded, the applications would not have met the demanding threshold for mandamus set out in an earlier High Court decision, given the elapsed time and fresh information.
An application for a declaration was understood by the court to have been effectively withdrawn at the hearing, so the judge did not rule on it. He also said whether Mr Mahfooz benefited from the European Court of Justice ruling in Chenchooliah was initially for the Minister to decide. The judgment records that the ruling was then being appealed to the Supreme Court.