The High Court granted I.I. (Nigeria) leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing permission to remain in Ireland, but excluded the applicant’s request for an injunction preventing the Minister for Justice and Equality from making a deportation order.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 30 May 2018. The application concerned a refusal under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015, made on 26 April. The applicant sought leave on 17 May to challenge that decision and to restrain the Minister from signing a deportation order under section 51.
The applicant was notified on 18 May of a deportation order dated 8 May. A letter dated 15 May had informed the applicant of the order.
The judge said a deportation order follows almost automatically after a section 49 refusal, subject to statutory conditions, including non-refoulement. He said there was generally no independent basis to challenge the deportation order separately from the section 49 refusal, except in an extremely exceptional case where the Minister departed from the reasoning on refoulement.
He held that an injunction preventing the order from being made at the section 49 stage was inappropriate because it would delay the process without serving a purpose. The judge distinguished making an order from enforcing it: he said it might be appropriate to restrain enforcement, and applicants challenging a section 49 decision should frame their request in those terms. If an order is made after judicial review proceedings begin, the parties could seek to amend those proceedings to include a consequential challenge, potentially avoiding separate proceedings.
The court granted leave to seek relief E(i) on grounds F(i) to F(iv), excluding the request to restrain the making of the deportation order. It gave liberty to apply on notice to amend the proceedings in relation to the deportation order and reserved costs. The judgment does not state that the deportation order was quashed or that its enforcement was restrained.