The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenging the proposed transfer of an anonymised Pakistani asylum applicant to the United Kingdom under the Dublin III system.
Mr Justice David Keane held that the injunction granted during the judicial review paused the time limit for carrying out the transfer. He also concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of the court’s process and of rights under EU law. The court dismissed the proceedings; it did not make a new transfer order in its conclusion.
The applicant arrived in Ireland on 9 June 2015 and sought asylum that day. UK authorities confirmed that he had held student leave and later permission to remain until 18 December 2014. The United Kingdom accepted Ireland’s request to take charge of his protection claim on 30 November 2015. The Refugee Applications Commissioner made a transfer decision on 21 January 2016, which the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed on 18 April 2016.
The applicant did not attend for transfer on 5 May 2016 after a notice was sent to him and his then solicitor. He was deemed to have absconded, and Ireland notified the UK in June 2016 that it was invoking the Dublin Regulation’s possible extension of the transfer period to 18 months. The applicant was arrested at his home on 5 August 2017 and detained pending transfer. An interim injunction granted on 11 August 2017 prevented the transfer while the judicial review continued.
The applicant argued that the 18-month deadline had expired, making Ireland responsible for examining his claim. The judge rejected that interpretation. Applying the reasoning in an earlier High Court decision and the EU court’s ruling in *Petrosian*, he found the judicial review injunction had suspensive effect for the Dublin transfer deadline. The court therefore did not accept that the deadline had elapsed in a way that barred transfer. It also declined to refer the interpretation question to the EU Court of Justice.
The judge separately found that the application for the interim injunction had failed to disclose material information. This included the applicant’s failure to notify the immigration authorities of his address change and a 2016 decision by a Superintendent Registrar that a proposed civil marriage between the applicant and an EU citizen would be a marriage of convenience and could not proceed. The applicant’s claimed durable relationship and the marriage-related matters were disputed or assessed in other proceedings; the court’s account of the registrar’s decision was not a finding that a civil marriage had taken place.
The judge also rejected the argument that a pending review of the refusal of residence rights suspended the transfer. The applicant had not been made subject to a removal order under the regulations relied on; he faced a proposal to make a deportation order. The proceedings were dismissed.