The High Court has extended the time for an Albanian man to challenge a decision refusing him subsidiary protection, but granted leave only on a limited procedural argument about how that application was handled.
In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2012, Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe refused leave to challenge the deportation order against Ervis Troci and the Minister’s later refusal to revoke it. He also refused leave on most grounds concerning the subsidiary protection decision. The ruling addressed an application for leave to seek judicial review; it did not determine the substantive challenge to the subsidiary protection process.
Mr Troci had claimed asylum in Ireland in 2008, saying he feared a blood feud in Albania. The asylum authorities rejected his claim after making adverse credibility findings. He did not challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision. The Minister later found him ineligible for subsidiary protection and made a deportation order in February 2011.
Mr Troci married Irish citizen Sharon Mary Healy on 1 March 2011. In October, after receiving further representations about the couple’s family life, the Minister reconsidered the case and affirmed the deportation order. The High Court recorded that the Minister accepted deportation would interfere with their family life but concluded that the interference was justified and that there were no insurmountable obstacles to Ms Healy joining her husband in Albania.
The couple argued that the subsidiary protection process was unfairly linked to the deportation process, leaving Mr Troci disadvantaged. The Minister’s side accepted that this “enmeshment” argument was arguable. The judge found the delay in bringing the challenge sufficiently explained, including by the steps taken to obtain legal assistance, and granted an extension of time. Leave was granted on grounds 4, 5 and 11(a), (b) and (c), with specified reliefs relating only to the subsidiary protection decision.
The judge rejected the couple’s other arguments, including claims based on their constitutional family rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law. He also refused an attempt to add grounds challenging the statutory basis for deportation orders, and refused leave on a separate argument about the Minister’s duty to cooperate in assessing subsidiary protection. The court made no final ruling on the merits of the limited challenge that was allowed to proceed.