The High Court has refused an Albanian man’s application to quash a decision upholding the refusal of his application under the Regularisation of Long Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme. The court also rejected his challenge to the scheme’s first strand as irrational, disproportionate or discriminatory.
The applicant came to Ireland in April 2017 and applied for international protection in June that year. His application was refused in June 2019, and a deportation order was made the following month. While his protection claim was pending, he held permission to remain under section 16 of the International Protection Act 2015, also referred to as a temporary residence certificate (TRC).
He applied to the scheme in February 2022. The first strand required applicants to have been in the State without permission for at least four years by 31 January 2022. The application was refused in September 2022, and an appeal upheld that refusal in June 2023. The man then brought judicial review proceedings, for which he obtained leave in November 2023.
He argued that the Minister had wrongly counted his section 16 permission as lawful residence, and that treating TRC holders differently from undocumented migrants was irrational and unfair. He also argued that the decision-maker had unlawfully fettered the Minister’s discretion by refusing to set aside the scheme criteria in his case. His submission that the scheme treated section 16 permission inconsistently across its two strands was also rejected.
The judge found that the two strands addressed different groups and had different aims. The first was intended to alleviate difficulties faced by long-term undocumented migrants; the second concerned international protection applicants whose claims had remained undecided for at least two years. The judgment said the applicant was excluded from the first strand and that the court had not been shown an irrational distinction. The judge also found no unlawful fettering: the request for discretion rested on disagreement with the Minister’s view of the effect of the TRC and sought, in substance, to disapply the scheme criteria.
The court refused the relief sought. It noted that the applicant could still choose to apply separately under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, a route the judgment said remained unaffected by the scheme decision. The judge’s provisional view was that the Minister should receive her costs, but invited written submissions within 14 days if either party disagreed. The judgment does not record a final costs order.