The High Court refused an asylum seeker’s ex parte application for an interim injunction to stop his transfer to the United Kingdom under the Dublin II Regulation. The court found that the proposed grounds raised no fair issue to be tried. Its decision concerned interim relief; it did not determine a final judicial review challenge.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.W., is a native of Pakistan. He claimed he arrived in Ireland on 30 December 2009 without identity documents, after travelling through Iran, Turkey and other states. He applied for asylum on 8 January 2010.
After exchanging biographical details and fingerprints, the Irish authorities learned that he had visited England in 2006 and 2008 and had been issued a two-year UK visa on 26 September 2008. The UK Border Agency agreed on 28 May 2010 to take charge of his asylum application under Article 9.2 of the regulation. A transfer order followed on 17 June 2010.
The applicant proposed to challenge the order on two grounds. He argued that the UK’s responsibility had ended because he had been outside the UK and the European Union for more than three months, and that his visa was not a “valid residence document” under Article 16(3). He also argued that Ireland’s request to the UK omitted his claim about how long he had been away, contrary to Article 20.
Justice Cooke held that the visa fell within the regulation’s definition of a residence document. He said the question was whether the document connected the applicant to a member state for the purpose of deciding which state should examine his asylum application, rather than whether he had a current right to reside in the UK. The judgment noted that the UK had accepted responsibility on the basis of Article 9.2.
The court also held that Article 20’s information requirement applied to specified take-back cases, not this application, which had been made in Ireland and was being transferred under Article 9. The information relevant to the UK’s responsibility was the applicant’s identity and his connection to the visa.
The judge further criticised the applicant’s affidavit, saying it did not directly explain when he left the UK or how he entered Ireland, and described the application as lacking candour. The court said it would have refused relief on that basis if it had found a fair issue to be tried. It refused the interim injunction.