The High Court has refused an applicant permission to seek judicial review of a deportation order made against her, finding she had not established substantial grounds on the arguments pursued.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.C., is a Togo national who came to Ireland in 2007 and applied for asylum. Her refugee-status application and appeal were unsuccessful. Her application for subsidiary protection was also refused. The Minister signed a deportation order on 26 January 2011 after officials examined her file, including her application for leave to remain.
The judicial review application focused on her disability and medical condition, a challenge to the constitutionality and human-rights compatibility of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, whether the Minister personally considered the case, and whether the decision properly addressed her representations. The court heard the application for leave to bring judicial review; it did not conduct a full review of the deportation decision.
The applicant’s submissions said medical evidence showed she could not travel by car, bus or plane because of acute back pain, and that deportation would breach her rights. A public health nurse’s report described disability and mobility difficulties, including use of an electric wheelchair outside the home. The judgment records that a later file review considered the report and retained the recommendation to deport. The court said there was no medical evidence that she could not be conveyed by road, rail or air, and no submission that officials would fail to take appropriate account of her disability during removal. It found no substantial ground to grant leave on the medical grounds.
The court also rejected the constitutional and Convention challenge, adopting a previous High Court ruling that had upheld the relevant provisions. On the claim that the Minister had not personally considered the non-refoulement issue, the court noted that the order was signed by the Minister, the file examination was stamped as approved, and the decision letter enclosed the Minister’s considerations. It was satisfied there was no substantial ground for leave on that issue.
The judgment recounts that the applicant’s account of past political persecution in Togo had been rejected by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which found her credibility wanting. It said further country information had been considered in the deportation file. The court also found no substance in claims that the decision was disproportionate or had failed to consider the applicant’s representations.
The court refused leave to apply for judicial review on the grounds advanced. It did not grant the requested interlocutory injunction, and the judgment does not determine the underlying judicial review claims after a full hearing.