The High Court has refused Yashraj Jooree’s application for judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision not to deal with his application for stamp 4 permission. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 21 December 2018, concerned the Minister’s decision of 9 August 2016.
Jooree, a Mauritian citizen, had held successive stamp 2 student permissions, the last of which expired in 2009. He left Ireland and later returned. The judgment says he appeared to have been unlawfully in the State since May 2015. In a letter dated 17 August 2015, he sought stamp 4 permission under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004. He asked the court, among other relief, to quash the Minister’s refusal to deal with that application.
The Minister’s decision said that because Jooree had no permission when his application was received, the question of amending or extending permission did not arise and the case would not be dealt with under section 4. Justice Barrett noted that the Act refers to permission being “renewed or varied”, rather than amended or extended. He concluded that the decision clearly conveyed that a permission could not be varied where none was in force, and that it gave good reason for refusing to deal with the application.
The judgment records that the Minister had not provided retrospective reasons in pleadings or submissions. The court nevertheless found the stated reason adequate and found no breach of the Minister’s duty of candour. It also said Jooree had not applied to renew stamp 4 permission, which he had never held.
The decision had also refused a further student permission. The court said that permission had not been sought in Jooree’s letter, which focused on being allowed to remain as a worker, and that refusing something not sought would entail patent procedural unfairness. That did not alter the court’s conclusion that the decision gave good reason not to deal with the stamp 4 application.
Justice Barrett said the application was based on section 4 and did not ask the Minister to exercise any separate discretionary executive power to grant permission to remain. The judgment noted that if deportation proceedings under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 proceeded, Jooree could make written representations, which the Minister would have to consider along with his family and domestic circumstances. It also said a statement in the decision about the possibility of applying for a visa from outside Ireland was a statement of fact, not an invitation to leave.
The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in *Luximon*, saying that case concerned people whose status had been lawful, whereas Jooree was an unlawful long-term resident. It refused the application as a matter of law. The judgment does not state a separate order quashing the Minister’s decision.