The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order and refused an injunction restraining deportation, finding that he had not shown substantial grounds for the case to proceed.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant, identified as H.A. (Pakistan), had applied for asylum in Ireland in June 2015 after living in the UK on a student visa. His asylum application was recommended for refusal in July 2016. He later applied for subsidiary protection and appealed decisions refusing protection.
The applicant was notified on 1 August 2018 that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had refused his appeals. He said his former solicitor had not received a review form with the decision. The judge noted that the form was not statutory and that submissions could be made without it.
The judgment said the applicant did not contact his solicitor until 23 August, after she had written to him on 9 August. The court found there was no explanation for the periods of inaction, including during the five-day period for further submissions after an adverse appeal decision. It also found the applicant had not said what he would have submitted if he had received the form, and had never since provided information that could trigger a review.
A deportation order was made on 19 October 2018, requiring the applicant to leave Ireland by 19 November and to present on 21 November if he failed to leave. The judgment states that he did not present and was arrested as an evader. At the time of the application he was in custody in Limerick Prison.
The applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review to quash the deportation order. The judge said the evidence fell short of the statutory substantial grounds test and also identified a timing issue, but did not make a formal finding on whether the case was out of time because it failed on its merits.
The court refused leave. It also refused the requested injunction, stating that no injunction could arise where leave was refused; alternatively, the applicant had not shown adequate reasons for an injunction on the balance of justice and convenience. The ruling did not determine the underlying protection claims.