The High Court dismissed I.M. (Ghana)’s judicial review challenge to a refusal of subsidiary protection and a deportation order, and released the respondents from an undertaking not to deport the applicant.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 24 April 2018, records that the applicant arrived in Ireland in 2008 and unsuccessfully applied for asylum. A proposal to deport followed in March 2009. The applicant sought subsidiary protection and leave to remain the next month, then made further applications and submissions in August 2012. Subsidiary protection was refused on 8 November 2012, and a deportation order issued on 16 November. The judicial review proceedings began on 12 December 2012, with leave granted five days later.
In October 2017, the applicant sought to amend the proceedings because the perfected order granting leave did not include grounds 19 to 23, although leave had been given to pursue the associated relief. Justice Humphreys corrected that mismatch, despite the respondents’ submission that the applicant could have applied to the judge who originally granted leave.
The applicant’s remaining fact-specific ground concerned the subsidiary protection decision. The applicant argued that the Minister had relied, without notice, on material published after the application. The judge said the Supreme Court had clarified that mainstream country information need not be put to an applicant, and that the Minister could consider up-to-date material generated after an application. He concluded that relying on material such as the BBC country profile for 2012 was legitimate.
The judgment also records that, when counsel for the applicant was confronted with the fact that little material in the decision post-dated the application, counsel argued instead that the Minister had failed to consider all up-to-date material. The judge rejected the claim of illegality, noting that the Minister said the applicant’s submitted material had been considered and was entitled to update it using subsequent reports.
The ruling dismissed the application and released the respondents from any undertaking not to deport the applicant. The judgment does not determine that deportation had occurred; it records the release from the undertaking.