The High Court has refused a Zimbabwean man’s challenge to a decision refusing him permission to remain in Ireland, finding that the Minister was entitled to conclude that evidence of his claimed relationship was insufficient.
The judicial review concerned a January 2020 decision made under section 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015, following a review of an earlier refusal of permission to remain. The applicant also sought to quash a deportation order made in February 2020. The court refused the relief sought and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.
The man arrived in the State in May 2017 and applied for international protection. His claim was rejected by an International Protection Officer in March 2019, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in August 2019. The Minister had refused permission to remain in April 2019.
In August 2019, the applicant asked the Minister to review that decision, relying on an asserted relationship with a woman who had refugee status. A letter from her said they had been in a relationship since August 2017, that he had a strong bond with her children, and that they planned to marry. His solicitor also submitted that the couple intended to live together and that the applicant supported her and her children from his wages.
The court noted that the woman’s letter was the only evidence before the Minister of a sustaining relationship. The solicitor’s submissions were not evidence, the applicant did not mention the relationship in a personal email to the Minister, and no other evidence of financial support or connection between the couple was provided. Earlier submissions made during the applicant’s protection and permission-to-remain processes had also not mentioned the relationship, despite it allegedly existing at that time.
The Minister refused the review in January 2020, citing insufficient evidence of a sustaining relationship. The applicant argued that the decision involved a material factual error, applied too high a standard of proof and was disproportionate. The court rejected those grounds, holding that the decision was open to the Minister on the material provided and was neither irrational nor unreasonable nor disproportionate. It also found no obligation on the Minister to raise concerns about the evidence with the applicant before deciding the review.