The High Court refused the Minister for Justice and Equality leave to appeal a judgment concerning deportation and humanitarian leave to remain, finding that none of the proposed questions would be determinative of the proceedings.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 3 April 2019. The Minister sought leave under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 to appeal the court’s earlier decision in *AM and others v Minister for Justice and Equality* [2019] IEHC 35.
The application raised five proposed points of law. They concerned whether the Minister had to expressly state that humanitarian leave to remain was considered when making a deportation decision or refusing to revoke a deportation order; whether that aspect of the decision was reviewable by the courts; the effect of family members being at different stages of protection applications; and whether unlawful long-term residence could be considered.
Justice Barrett said the earlier judgment had granted relief because of perceived unfairness in the Minister’s decision, including application of an incorrect test, breaches of substantive rights and failure to address delay in deportation as relevant to proportionality. He said the case was not about a mere omission in the wording of the Minister’s reasoning. The earlier judgment had found that the Minister did not mention or consider the discretion to grant humanitarian leave described in *DE v Minister for Justice and Equality* [2018] IESC 16.
The judge said the question about judicial review was not uncertain: a decision under section 3(6)(h) was reviewable. The family-unity question did not arise from the earlier judgment, which addressed the Minister’s finding that there were no insurmountable obstacles to family unity despite the father being an international protection applicant who could not then be deported. The long-term residence question was also unrelated to the case heard.
The court concluded that no point of law of exceptional public importance arose. It added that the relevant law was not sufficiently uncertain to make an appeal desirable in the public interest, and that none of the questions would determine the proceedings. Leave to appeal was refused. The ruling did not decide the proposed questions on appeal.