The High Court has rejected T.F.’s challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision to revoke his refugee status, finding that he had a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions and that his pending Circuit Court appeal was an appropriate alternative remedy.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered judgment on 16 June 2022 in judicial review proceedings concerning the Minister’s 18 May 2021 decision under section 52 of the International Protection Act 2015. The decision revoked T.F.’s refugee declaration on the basis that Romania’s accession to the European Union in 2007 represented a significant, non-temporary change in circumstances. T.F. argued that the process was unfair and unlawful, that the decision-maker was not impartial, that there had been inordinate delay, and that section 52 was unconstitutional.
T.F., who is of Roma ethnic origin, was granted refugee status in 2004 after fleeing persecution in Romania. He later became an Irish citizen. The judgment records that Romanian authorities sought his surrender under European Arrest Warrants in 2010 and 2018. His surrender was refused in 2011 and again in 2020. The judge found that the Minister’s involvement in those proceedings did not establish abuse of process, noting that the Minister was required to bring warrant applications and that the courts made the surrender decisions.
The Minister notified T.F. of the proposed revocation on 5 March 2021 and gave him 15 working days to make written representations. The deadline was extended twice, ultimately to 14 May. His solicitor’s 6 May letter objected to the proposal as ultra vires, abusive and delayed, and said it had followed the unsuccessful surrender attempt. It did not provide evidence about conditions for Roma people in Romania or explain why Romania’s EU membership did not change the risk to T.F.
The court rejected the claim that the Minister’s correspondence led T.F. to believe the legal objections would be decided before the revocation proposal. It found the department had made clear that the 6 May letter was the only submission being considered and that the Minister would decide the proposal. The court also found that the decision gave clear, intelligible reasons and that the evidence did not establish that the European arrest proceedings or T.F.’s citizenship had improperly influenced the outcome.
The judgment did not decide whether T.F. should ultimately lose refugee status. It described the Minister’s decision as a first-instance decision and the Circuit Court appeal as a fresh hearing at which further evidence could be considered. T.F. had appealed, but that appeal had not been determined. The High Court refused judicial review, finding he had not established any of his grounds and had not exhausted the alternative remedy. It left the parties to address the form of order and costs; the judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event if they could not agree.