The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenging the Minister for Justice and Equality’s October 2018 refusal to revoke a deportation order against an anonymised applicant from Chad. It also discharged the stay on deportation that had been granted pending the hearing.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave judgment on 29 January 2019. The application sought certiorari of the refusal. The court had granted leave to bring the proceedings in December 2018 and, in January, set an accelerated timetable and stayed removal until the hearing.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in November 2007 and sought asylum. The judgment records that the Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the claim and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal also rejected an appeal, though neither decision was produced in these proceedings. The Minister rejected a later subsidiary protection application and made a deportation order in July 2012. After the applicant sought asylum in the UK, he was returned to Ireland in January 2014 under the Dublin system.
The applicant had made two applications to revoke the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The first was refused in March 2017 and was not challenged. The second, made in August 2018, was refused in October 2018.
The applicant argued that the refusal failed to balance the relevant factors, including the time since the deportation order, the McMahon Working Group report and interference with his private life. The judge held that the report pre-dated the first refusal and could not provide a basis to challenge the later decision after the first had gone unchallenged. He also said the report was not government policy and, in any event, the applicant did not qualify under its approach because he had evaded deportation. A possible misprint in the decision about which McMahon condition was not met was harmless, the judge concluded.
The court also rejected arguments that the Minister wrongly confined the assessment to older case law and failed to consider non-refoulement. The judge said a section 3(11) application is not limited to changed circumstances, but the Minister could refuse revocation where no change was shown. On non-refoulement, he found that the relevant issue had been considered in earlier decisions and, without significantly new information, the Minister was entitled to follow them.
The court dismissed the application and discharged the stay. The judge said the State’s delay in carrying out the deportation order did not make it invalid or unenforceable.