The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge by an anonymised Pakistani applicant to the Minister for Justice’s review of a decision refusing him permission to remain in Ireland. The court said the Minister had considered the applicant’s medical and personal circumstances, but noted that the original decision contained a flaw that was later addressed by an addendum. The court said that flaw could have consequences for costs.
The applicant sought to have the review decision, its addendum and a deportation order quashed. The review concerned representations made under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015, including a doctor’s letter about heart disease, depression, pain, suicidal thoughts and awaited counselling.
The Minister’s original decision referred to Ghana rather than Pakistan when discussing the impact of return on the applicant’s health. After the court remitted the matter for possible correction, an addendum dated 9 April 2019 described the reference as a typographical error and replaced the relevant paragraph. The applicant then amended his case to challenge the decision as corrected.
The court rejected the applicant’s grounds, which included claims that the Minister had not properly assessed his circumstances under section 49 or his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It found the decision addressed Article 3, Article 8 and humanitarian considerations, and that the Minister was entitled to assess the weight of the medical letter. The court said the evidence did not establish the exceptional circumstances required for the Article 8 challenge to succeed.
The applicant also argued that the Minister had inadequately considered the effects of return on his physical and mental health. The court distinguished inadequate consideration from failure to consider the matters at all, and found that failure had not been shown. It said the country-reference correction was not, by itself, evidence of legally ineffective decision-making.
The judgment records that earlier asylum and protection decisions had rejected the applicant’s account that he returned to Pakistan between 2013 and 2015. Those earlier findings were not challenged in these proceedings. The court also declined to grant relief on non-refoulement arguments, which it said had not been pleaded as a ground of challenge; it added that no error had been demonstrated in any event.
The final order was to dismiss the proceedings. The court did not decide the costs issue in the excerpted order, stating only that the original wording flaw might have consequences for costs.