The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order, finding that the evidence did not support a stateable ground for the challenge and that the applicant had not established locus standi.
The redacted judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 28 February 2007, concerned a deportation order made on 6 May 2005 against T. Y. O. The applicant, who had arrived in Ireland as an unaccompanied minor, had previously been refused refugee status.
The challenge was advanced on the basis that 22 months had passed between representations asking the Minister for permission to remain on humanitarian grounds and the deportation decision, without adequate updated information being considered. The applicant also relied on continuing education and his Leaving Certificate results.
An affidavit from a Department of Justice official showed that three further sets of representations had been sent after July 2003, on 14 October 2003, 3 December 2003 and 29 October 2004. They included school attendance certificates, more than 70 letters from fellow students, and an August 2004 letter from an adult learning centre stating that the applicant had completed his Leaving Certificate and wanted to repeat it.
The judge said that letter indicated the applicant had sat the examination in 2004. During the hearing, counsel was told that he had not sat it until 2005. The court concluded that six months, rather than 22, had elapsed between the final representations and the deportation decision. It also said no evidence had been filed to explain or correct the discrepancy, and no specific change in the applicant’s educational or living circumstances had been shown that might have affected the Minister’s decision.
The judge found a want of candour, including the omission of the three later sets of representations, and said the resulting lack of credit was sufficient to refuse leave. He expressly said the applicant’s legal representatives were not to blame and that the issue rested with the applicant.
The court also rejected reliance on a prior High Court case, Butusha, finding that its factual circumstances were not present here. It declined leave both because of the candour and evidential problems and because the evidence was insufficient to support the relief sought. The judgment did not determine the lawfulness of the deportation order after a full judicial review hearing; it refused permission to bring that challenge.