The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani man’s challenge to his detention and his judicial review of immigration decisions, including the revocation of his residence permission and a deportation order. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 30 January 2018 that the judicial review failed both on time limits and on its merits, and dismissed the Article 40 application. He also refused leave to appeal and an injunction.
The applicant had been arrested on 15 January 2018 under the Immigration Act 1999 and was held at Cloverhill Prison. His Article 40 application challenged the legality of that detention. The court heard it together with a judicial review for which leave had been granted on 29 January, after the applicant sought an extension of time.
The judge found that the applicant had not properly notified the authorities of a change of address. He rejected the applicant’s evidence that he had instructed solicitors to notify the Department. The judge said the applicant had actual knowledge of the deportation order from a telephone call with a solicitor on 6 September 2017, but did not seek judicial review until more than four months later. The court found no basis to extend the 28-day time limit.
Considering the judicial review’s merits in any event, the judge held that the Department had served notices in accordance with the applicable statutory procedures, using the applicant’s last notified address. He rejected the argument that returned mail meant the authorities had to achieve actual contact, and found the applicant responsible for any lack of participation in the process.
The central factual dispute concerned whether the applicant’s marriage to Portuguese national Ms Iolanda Da Silva was genuine. The Minister had concluded it was a marriage of convenience. After hearing both parties’ evidence, the judge rejected their accounts as evasive and dishonest, and found the Minister’s conclusion supported by the evidence. He cited, among other matters, the timing of the marriage, Ms Da Silva’s departure from Ireland the day after the ceremony, limited evidence of ongoing contact, and the parties’ inconsistent accounts.
The judge also rejected the claim that a deportation order was unavailable because the applicant relied on EU free movement rights, finding those rights had been procured through abuse and fraud and withdrawn. He said reopening the matter for reconsideration would be futile and that the proceedings should also be dismissed in the court’s discretion.
The court’s final order dismissed both proceedings. The judge refused leave to appeal, finding the proposed question was not decisive given his other findings, and refused an injunction. The judgment does not identify the applicant by an unredacted name.