The High Court declined to continue an injunction restraining the deportation of an anonymised applicant from China. The decision addressed interim relief only; the court said the underlying judicial review case could be brought back if its strength changed after fuller argument.
The applicant arrived in Ireland via Malaysia in June 2011 and applied for asylum. The judgment records that the asylum interview concerned a claim of persecution as a Catholic in China, while his sister later said he had told her the claim related to Falun Gong. He missed a scheduled interview, did not complete the questionnaire, and his asylum application was deemed withdrawn in July 2011.
A deportation order was made in March 2012 and amended later that month to include two aliases. It was not challenged. Under regulations that took effect in October 2017, certain people had 30 days to apply for subsidiary protection. The court said that period had expired by 13 November 2017 at the latest, though the regulations allowed an extension in specified circumstances.
After being arrested in February 2018, the applicant lodged a subsidiary protection application claiming involvement with Falun Gong. The application gave no reason for missing the deadline. It was rejected on 28 February 2018 for failing to set out exceptional reasons for a late application. The applicant then obtained leave to seek judicial review, primarily seeking to quash that rejection, and received a temporary injunction against removal until 13 March.
In considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the judge weighed the unchallenged deportation order, the apparent weakness of the case on the limited argument heard, and the delay in seeking an injunction after the arrest. The judge also considered the consequences for the applicant, his partner and two children. The judgment said the evidence about the partner and children was very limited and that the applicant’s protection applications were inconsistent.
The court concluded that the factors against interim relief outweighed those in the applicant’s favour. It declined to continue the injunction against deportation. The judgment did not decide the substantive judicial review challenge to the 28 February rejection.