The High Court has refused a preliminary application by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to dismiss a judicial review brought by Nigerian national Emmanuel Abiodun Salaja and his minor son, Tiernan Salaja. The court made no decision on the merits of their challenge to an earlier refusal of immigration permission.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 10 February 2011. The proceedings concern the Minister’s refusal, dated 2 February 2010, of Mr Salaja’s application to change from stamp 2 permission to stamp 4. Stamp 2 allowed him to study and work up to 20 hours a week during term and 40 hours outside term. He had permission to reside in Ireland until September 2011, according to the judgment.
The judgment says Mr Salaja made further applications in June and August 2010, drawing attention to the birth of his younger child and, in the later application, new supporting documents. A decision on the August application was still awaited. The Minister argued that the later applications had superseded the one refused in February, leaving no live dispute for the court to decide.
Mr Justice Hogan rejected that argument. He said a successful challenge to the original refusal could bring a real benefit: the Minister would have to reconsider that application and might reassess the later applications. The later applications therefore did not, by themselves, make the judicial review moot. The judge noted that the proceedings could become moot if the Minister granted one of the subsequent requests.
The judgment records that Mr Salaja’s elder child has joint Irish and British citizenship and that Northern Irish courts had made a joint residence order requiring Mr Salaja to collect the child on Friday afternoons and return him on Monday afternoons. The younger child is described as a British citizen. These details formed part of the context for the applications; the court did not decide the substantive immigration claim.
The Minister also argued that the case should be dismissed because of alleged lack of candour concerning Mr Salaja’s frequent visits to Northern Ireland and whether he had permission to enter. The judge said that even if lack of candour were established, it would not justify summarily striking out the proceedings. Whether it should affect any relief would depend on the circumstances and a fuller examination.
The court refused the relief sought in the preliminary motion. It expressed no view on the merits of the substantive proceedings.