The High Court refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the deportation of an anonymised applicant to Pakistan while his application for leave to seek judicial review was awaiting a hearing. The court did not decide whether that leave application should be granted or determine the legality of the deportation order.
Mr Justice Cooke said the court would assume for the purpose of the injunction motion that at least one proposed ground of challenge might be arguable. He did not express a view on that issue because the leave application had not yet been heard.
The judge said an applicant seeking to halt deportation must show why restraint is necessary to prevent an irreversible or irreparable change before the issues are determined. The fact that deportation would remove someone from the State did not, by itself, establish such a change. The court also considered whether the applicant needed to remain in Ireland to pursue the case.
The applicant’s affidavit said he feared being killed if he returned to Pakistan, referring to harm to family members, an alleged perception that he was an informer, and fear of state authorities. The judgment records that asylum decision makers had rejected his account as incredible, and that the Minister had adopted that credibility finding when refusing subsidiary protection and leave to remain.
The court also noted that the applicant’s claim of risk from the Taliban had been assessed on the basis that he could relocate elsewhere in Pakistan. As to his fear of the security forces, the judge observed that the applicant said he had not personally suffered mistreatment and had not sought information from a friend about what had happened to his family after he left Pakistan. The judgment said his wife and children were said to be safe in their home village.
The court concluded that the application was not supported by credible evidence of a real and current risk of irreparable harm before the leave hearing. It also found no demonstrated need for the applicant to remain in Ireland to exercise effective access to the court. The injunction was refused. The judgment did not determine the pending leave application or make a final ruling on the underlying judicial review challenge.