The High Court has refused an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging his deportation order and related immigration decisions. The ruling was made at the leave stage; the court did not conduct a full judicial review hearing. It also ordered the matter adjourned to allow the applicant to seek leave to appeal.
The applicant, identified as K.A.S., came to Ireland from Pakistan on a student visa in March 2005. The visa expired in October that year. He later claimed that a political party in Pakistan had persecuted him and that his brother had been killed because of differences with the group. The judge said the material supporting the claim was sparse.
A deportation order was made in February 2014, and the Minister notified the applicant at an address in Cork the following month. A proposal to deport drafted in 2015 was not sent: the Department said the applicant had left his last notified address without providing another. The judge rejected the argument that failure to serve that proposal gave grounds for relief, finding that the applicant’s failure to notify his current address prevented service.
The applicant left Ireland in January 2016 and was detained in Hungary while using another person’s passport, on his way to Italy. He returned to Ireland in April 2016. The judgment records that the authorities had accepted his return under a provision concerning an application “under examination”, but the exhibited material indicated he came back of his own accord after transfer procedures had begun. The court found no substantial basis for arguing that the authorities were prevented from relying on the earlier deemed withdrawal of his asylum application and the deportation order.
The judge also rejected the applicant’s other grounds at the leave stage. These included claims about changes in conditions in Pakistan, notices under the 2014 Dublin System Regulations, an effective remedy under an EU directive, and the time limit for applying for subsidiary protection. The court said the grounds lacked the necessary factual basis or did not show substantial grounds. It added that, even if substantial grounds had been established, it would refuse leave as a matter of discretion, citing the applicant’s conduct and the limited basis of his protection claim.
The order refused leave for judicial review, adjourned the matter to allow an application for leave to appeal on notice to the respondents, required the applicant to serve the Chief State Solicitor’s Office with the judgment within seven days, and discharged the interim injunction from the oral pronouncement insofar as it remained in force.