The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by two Pakistani nationals and their minor child against decisions refusing them permission to remain in Ireland and making deportation orders. Mr Justice Heslin gave judgment on 7 April 2022, finding that the applicants were not entitled to relief on three independent grounds.
The family challenged decisions notified on 9 December 2019 refusing permission to remain under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015. They also challenged deportation orders made on 17 February 2020 and issued by letters dated 11 March 2020. The court had granted leave to bring the judicial review in November 2020, expressly leaving time-limit objections open.
First, the judge refused relief as a matter of discretion because he found the applicants had not been candid about material matters. These included a prior finding that the first applicant’s marriage to an EU national was one of convenience, a false marriage certificate he said he had obtained, and a Pakistani birth certificate for the child. The court also found that the applicants’ February 2020 letter to the Minister gave a misleading account of the marriage. The judge noted that the child was blameless, but concluded that the adults’ conduct justified refusing discretionary relief.
Second, the court refused to extend the time to bring the challenge. The applicable period was 28 days from notification of the refusal decisions. The applicants gave no reason for the first 90 days of delay, through 11 March 2020. The judge accepted that Covid-19 restrictions explained delay from 11 March to 11 May, but found no good or sufficient reason for a further 74 days before the required papers were filed on 24 July 2020. He rejected the argument that time to challenge the refusal decisions began only when the deportation orders were issued.
Third, the judge concluded that the pleaded grounds did not establish an arguable legal error. He said the judicial review was not an appeal on the merits and found that the Minister’s reviews addressed the material submitted, including the applicants’ family circumstances, health claims and the child’s interests. The court declined to admit additional material about healthcare in Pakistan because it had not been before the Minister or been properly included in the pleaded case.
The court dismissed the claim. It did not make a final costs order in the judgment: the parties were directed to correspond about the form of order, including costs, and file brief submissions within 14 days if they could not agree. The judge’s preliminary view was that the normal rule that costs follow the event should apply.