The High Court has refused a Pakistani national’s challenge to a decision refusing him permission to remain in Ireland and to a deportation order made against him. It also ordered him to pay the Minister for Justice’s costs.
In a judgment delivered on 9 February 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the applicant had not established his complaints about the Minister’s review decision or the deportation order. The case was a judicial review, in which the court assessed whether the decisions were lawful; it did not decide the underlying permission application afresh.
The applicant entered Ireland in March 2005 on student permission that expired in October that year. He later sought international protection, which was refused. In January 2018, the Minister refused permission to remain. The applicant sought a statutory review in January 2019, relying in part on his medical conditions. The Minister affirmed the refusal in July 2019, and a deportation order followed on 2 August.
The applicant argued that the review failed to account properly for his connections in Ireland, his medical conditions and his rights under the Constitution and human rights instruments. He also challenged the Minister’s reliance on his conduct and the refusal to carry out a second review after a further medical report was submitted.
The judge found that the Minister had considered the applicant’s friendships and connections, alongside his years without legal permission and his departure from Ireland on a false Portuguese passport. She said it was for the Minister to weigh those factors and found no irrationality or failure to consider relevant matters.
The judgment records that the applicant had received treatment for urethral stricture disease and remained under a consultant urologist’s care. The medical report referred to a high risk of urinary tract infections and the possibility of further procedures. But the court noted that no evidence had been submitted to the Minister about what treatment would be available in Pakistan. It concluded the evidence did not engage Articles 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge also rejected the argument that the Minister lacked medical expertise to assess the material.
On the second review request, the court held that the first statutory review had concluded, despite the review decision itself apparently not being enclosed with the notification letter. It also found that the further report’s contents had been considered in the first review. The judgment says the applicant’s challenges to the review decision or decisions and deportation order were not established. The court refused the relief sought and ordered costs for the Minister.