The High Court refused a stay of a deportation order for an anonymised Bangladeshi applicant while his judicial review proceedings continue, citing his failure to present as required and the limited strength of his case at this interim stage.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the ruling on 25 September 2019. The applicant had sought judicial review of the deportation order, an extension of time to challenge it, and a decision refusing to readmit him to the international protection process. The court had granted leave to bring the proceedings, but the judgment did not decide those substantive challenges.
The applicant arrived in Ireland in 2009 and claimed asylum; the judge said he had not been told what happened to that application. The applicant said he married a French national in April 2011 and received a residence card in April 2012. In February 2018, the Minister determined that the marriage was one of convenience and, the following month, refused to renew the card. Those decisions were not appealed or otherwise challenged. A deportation order followed in September 2018.
The applicant applied to challenge the deportation order after the time limit had expired. He said he paid €700 to T.H.L. Legal for help with court proceedings. The judge said the entity did not appear to be a solicitor and described correspondence that appeared to ask the applicant to sign an affidavit and post it back for purported “swearing” as a matter of considerable concern. The court directed the respondents’ solicitor to refer the papers to the Garda Síochána Serious Economic Crime Investigation Unit to consider the entity’s alleged activities. That direction was for consideration of the papers; the judgment made no finding that the entity had committed an offence.
The judge had previously refused an ex parte stay, principally because the applicant had failed to present on 17 September 2019 and was considered an evader. On the renewed application, the court said little had changed apart from the applicant saying he now intended to present. Applying the test in Okunade v Minister for Justice, the judge weighed the public interest in implementing measures considered prima facie valid, the applicant’s failure to meet presentation obligations, and the consequences of deportation while the case remained unresolved.
The judge also rejected reliance on the recent CJEU judgment in Chenchooliah, saying it concerned a different context and did not apply to a marriage-of-convenience situation. The finding about the applicant’s marriage had not been challenged. The stay was refused, and the substantive judicial review was adjourned to 18 November 2019 for the asylum list, for opposition papers to be furnished.