The High Court dismissed an Albanian applicant’s challenge to a deportation order and a separate application under Article 40 of the Constitution concerning his detention. The two proceedings were heard together. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave judgment on 6 December 2019.
The applicant had entered Ireland in 2014 and sought asylum. His asylum and subsidiary protection applications, and subsequent challenges, had been unsuccessful. A deportation order was made on 2 August 2019. He was arrested under that order on 21 November 2019.
The judicial review sought to have the deportation order quashed and to require the International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice and Equality to reconsider applications. The applicant advanced seven grounds, including claims concerning risk, the consideration of his rights and the adequacy of reasons.
The court rejected those grounds. It said the risk issues had been considered through the international protection process, the applicant’s rights had been considered, and reasons had been provided for the decisions. The judge also referred to four death certificates produced shortly before the hearing. The applicant had previously argued that such certificates could not be obtained, and the judge noted that the dates on the certificates were inconsistent with his account. The judgment records the applicant’s allegation that the deaths related to a blood feud; it does not make a finding establishing that account.
On 5 December 2019, the applicant applied for permission to make a further application for international protection under section 22 of the International Protection Act 2015. The Minister refused that application on the morning of the hearing. The applicant sought an adjournment to appeal the refusal and conditional release if the case was adjourned. The judge declined both requests, noting that an adjournment was not needed to bring an appeal and that conditional release arose only if the case was adjourned.
The judgment said an appeal against the section 22 refusal would not suspend its effect and found insufficient material to justify an injunction. It also said the Minister had already considered the new evidence and refused consent to a further application. The court concluded that the deportation order was lawful and answered the Article 40 application. Both proceedings were dismissed.