The High Court refused an Algerian woman leave to challenge her deportation decision on most of the grounds she advanced, but adjourned one ground pending a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. It also refused her request for interlocutory relief.
Mr Justice Hogan ruled on 10 May 2012 that the Minister for Justice did not have to personally make or sign the deportation order. The order had been made in the Minister’s name by Noel Waters, a senior civil servant authorised to take decisions of that kind. The court held that the Carltona doctrine applied and that the Immigration Act 1999 did not require the Minister to act personally. It therefore refused leave to seek judicial review on that ground.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in September 2007 and applied for asylum about two years later. Her claim included that she had directed a women’s rights organisation in Algeria and faced persecution and discrimination by police. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected her claim on credibility grounds in June 2010; the judgment records that this decision was not challenged. Her application for subsidiary protection was refused in July 2011, and she was informed the following month that a deportation order had been made.
A further argument concerned Article 4(1) of the EU Qualifications Directive. The applicant contended that she should have received a draft negative subsidiary protection decision in advance so she could comment. The judge adjourned this part of the leave application pending the Court of Justice’s decision in a separate case, MM. He noted that the applicant had not identified any part of the Minister’s decision that would have surprised her, and described this ground as largely theoretical.
The applicant also argued that the deportation decision breached her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She had married an Irish citizen in September 2010, but the couple were separated and living apart; there were no children of the marriage, and she had no other family in Ireland. The judge said the Minister was technically wrong to state there was no interference with family life, but considered the error harmless and refused leave on that ground.
Although the Article 4(1) issue remained adjourned, the judge said it did not establish an arguable case for interlocutory relief. He refused that relief. The judgment records no final determination of the adjourned ground.