The High Court refused leave to challenge the refusal of subsidiary protection and the deportation orders made against Oluwaseun Comfort Okunade and her infant son, Daniel Demilolुwa Okunade, finding no arguable grounds against the protection decision and no grounds against the deportation decisions.
Mr Justice Kevin Cross delivered the judgment on 30 March 2012 in judicial review proceedings. The applicants had previously been refused refugee status by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Their subsequent applications for subsidiary protection were also unsuccessful, and deportation orders were made against them.
The applicants began the proceedings on 16 August 2011, seeking leave to challenge both the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation orders. The court said a challenge to the protection refusal required arguable grounds, while a challenge to the deportation orders required substantial grounds. It also recorded that the parties accepted that a successful challenge to the protection decision would prevent the deportation orders taking effect.
The applicants argued, among other things, that Irish procedures did not provide adequate cooperation, equivalent protection or an effective remedy for people seeking subsidiary protection, and that the deportation orders were disproportionate. The court rejected those submissions. It said the applicants had not shown how they were individually prejudiced by the procedures or deprived of an effective remedy. It considered the case different from a Supreme Court ruling about a local authority eviction, because the applicants’ asylum claims had already involved document exchanges, interviews and an appeal, and the subsidiary protection decision was subject to judicial review.
On proportionality, the court said a person could seek revocation of a deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, but would need to advance matters materially different from those previously presented or capable of being presented. It found nothing in the applicants’ submissions to support a challenge to the proportionality or reasonableness of the orders.
The court concluded that the applicants had failed to establish arguable grounds to challenge the subsidiary protection refusal, or any grounds—arguable or substantial—to challenge the deportation decisions. The judgment therefore refused leave to bring the proposed judicial review challenges.