The High Court has refused an anonymised Pakistani man’s application to quash a deportation order, finding that the Minister for Justice had not unlawfully assessed his employment prospects or failed to give adequate reasons.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2022, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan said the reference in the Minister’s file to the man lacking permission to live or work in Ireland, and to there being no obligation to grant him permission, did not negatively evaluate his future employment prospects. Even if including those facts under the employment-prospects heading was an error, she said, it was minor and did not invalidate the order. The employment issue was not central to the Minister’s decision, and the assessment had to be considered as a whole rather than divided into separate headings.
The man had argued that the Minister applied the wrong test by focusing on his lack of permission instead of his prospects if permission were granted. He also said the decision did not reach a conclusion on those prospects and gave inadequate reasons. A separate challenge concerning his private rights was not pursued.
The man arrived in Ireland in August 2011 and sought asylum, but his application was refused. His appeal was treated as abandoned after he did not attend an oral hearing or explain his absence. He later received residence permission as the spouse of a Latvian national, valid until September 2017. In 2018, the Minister refused a subsequent permission application after deeming the marriage one of convenience, and proposed deportation.
The man had worked as a sales assistant, run a grocery shop and then operated a takeaway that employed two to three people. He told the Minister that deportation could cause the business to fail and cost the State revenue and jobs. He later said in an affidavit that he had been forced to close it in April 2021 because of the deportation order.
The judge found that the accompanying letter gave the man broad reasons for the decision: the public policy and common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration system outweighed features that might support not deporting him. She concluded that he had not established unlawfulness in the Minister’s reasons.
Separately, the judge said that even if she were wrong on the merits, she would refuse relief on discretionary grounds. She cited the marriage finding, discrepancies concerning the period the man lived with his spouse, and his return to Pakistan in November 2021 despite having raised fears of persecution or serious harm. She said he had not fully and candidly explained that discrepancy in a later affidavit.
The court refused the relief sought. It listed the proceedings for a costs mention on 28 July 2022 and set 21 July as the deadline for written submissions on costs.