The High Court refused leave for a Mauritian man to seek an order compelling the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to decide his application for permission to remain in Ireland. Mr Justice O’Regan held that the proposed application for mandamus was not arguable.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T. K. B., was born in 1972 and came to Ireland in August 2007. His student permission lasted until 25 February 2014. He applied on 18 March 2016 for permission to remain, by extending or varying his previous permission. No decision had been made by the time he sought leave in March 2017.
He argued that the delay of more than a year was unjustified and effectively a refusal, and that it breached fair procedure and good administration and caused prejudice. In an affidavit, he said he had been without permission since February 2014 and could not access education, housing or social assistance, or take up employment. He also said he could not sustain himself.
The judgment records that he sent the Minister one follow-up letter, dated 2 February 2017, asking for a decision within 14 days. The Minister replied that, following the Court of Appeal’s December 2016 judgment in *Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality*, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service was reviewing its decision-making process. The reply said the applicant would be contacted if further information was needed and that no steps would be taken against him while his application remained undecided.
Mr Justice O’Regan considered that response reasonable in light of the implications of *Luximon*. He also noted that the applicant had lived in Ireland without permission from February 2014 until applying in March 2016, and that the short length of the *Luximon* judgment did not mean the resulting review would be immediate. The judge said there was no evidence of delay in that review.
On the claimed employment prejudice, the judgment noted a P60 for 2014 and payslips dated 29 January, 19 February and 26 February 2016. The judge said the payslips showed employment, despite the applicant’s statement that he was unable to work, and found his claim of prejudice on that basis wholly unmeritorious.
The court’s decision was limited to refusing leave: it did not grant the requested order compelling a decision. The judgment does not determine the underlying residence application.