GC v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 215
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:04 Apr 2017
Judge:O’Regan M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Protection (International), Removal Order
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22a7c887-3ca6-4a73-b5c3-5944bd0c9dab/2017_IEHC_215_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian citizen who had permanent residence in Ireland. In 2015 he was convicted of assault and sentenced to three years and six months in prison with the final two years suspended. The Minister subsequently issued a removal order in respect of the applicant together with a three year exclusion order. The applicant instituted proceedings challenging … Read More

Principles:

This decision establishes that a decision-maker is not obliged as a general rule to conduct his or her own investigations in order to establish the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for international protection.

Go Back

Sandu v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 683
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Removal Order, Residence
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f83deff3-63b2-41dd-9b97-7a7066b1b924/2015_IEHC_683_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian national who sought asylum in Ireland on the 26 March 2001, as did his girlfriend, who was also Romanian, and gave birth to a child in Ireland, who was a citizen by operation of law. They subsequently withdrew their applications for asylum and applied to the Minister for Justice for permission to remain on … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether or not a person has accumulated 10 years’ residence in the State for the purpose of acquiring enhanced protection from expulsion under Article 28(3) of the Citizens’ Directive, the Minister for Justice must count back from the date upon which the removal order was made in order to ascertain if the necessary period of residence has been completed.

Go Back

PR, JR and KR (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 201
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2015
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Poland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/363467f3-78cc-4e9e-a000-eaa5f2b662c8/2015_IEHC_201_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Polish national and an EU citizen. He had been living in Ireland since October, 2006. He married a Polish national in 2011. They had one child, who was born in Ireland in 2012. In October, 2011, he acquired permanent residence under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 and justify a lengthy exclusion period.

The procedure provided under the Regulations of 2006 for review of the making of removal orders is compliant with EU law and Directive 2004/38/EC.

A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will risk an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

Kovalenko v Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 624
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Dec 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9314a321-e09e-43af-81aa-481cb6afb378/2014_IEHC_624_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The second named applicant was a Latvian national and, therefore, a Union citizen. He had been living in Ireland since December, 2003. He married a Latvian in 2005 and had lived with his wife since his removal on foot of a removal order made pursuant to the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, in June, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006.

When assessing whether or not to make such an order, the Minister for Justice is entitled to take into account the nature and seriousness of the criminal conduct and the attitude and subsequent behaviour of the offender. That may be considered alone or, in appropriate circumstances, cumulatively with other factors under the heading of “public policy” when deciding to remove or exclude such a person.

It is not necessarily relevant that the person has not committed any other offences in the meantime; a wider appraisal of the risk to public policy created by allowing him or her to remain in the State must be made by the Minister.

If, when making a removal order or affirming its making, the Minister comes into possession of material information pertaining to the risk posed by the applicant to public policy, it should be put to the applicant for comment in accordance with fair procedures.
A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will lead to an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

Debisi v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2nd February, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Feb 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Application for International), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7137d48-a7be-4ce0-ad03-81fe704b3670/2012_IEHC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been refused asylum by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and withdrew his appeal to the Refugee appeals Tribunal on the basis that his fear of serious harm in Nigeria was not one with a Convention nexus. His subsequent application for subsidiary protection, which was based on the same facts as his asylum claim, purported to reject the Commissioner’s … Read More

Principles:

There is no obligation on the Minister to reconsider a subsidiary protection applicant’s credibility in the absence of new evidence, information or other basis capable of demonstrating that the original findings were vitiated by material error on the part of the decision maker.

It may be that the fair procedures require the Minister for Justice to interview an applicant for subsidiary protection who seeks to rely upon a risk of harm from a source not previously considered in the asylum process. The deportation process is interrupted by the requirement to determine the subsidiary protection application. It is in the sense of resuming or continuing the procedure initiated with the notification of the deportation proposal that the words ‘proceed to consider’ are used in Regulation 4(5) of the European Community (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

The work done by officials in the Department of Justice in preparing an examination of file re deportation is preparatory work only, and may be undertaken before a subsidiary protection application is determined. The Minister remains entirely free to make his own judgment on the case.

Go Back

AO v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:17 January 2012, 2012 IEHC, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Application for a stay on the implementation of a deportation order pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:17 Jan 2012
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bf3ea1b6-e98f-447c-a9c1-4eecdc63deea/2012_IEHC_8_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicant sought a stay on the implementation of his deportation order.  The Court had vacated an earlier interim injunction that the Court had granted after it transpired that the Applicant had failed to disclose a material fact, (i.e., that he had already applied, unsuccessfully, to the High Court for injunction). The Applicant presented himself to immigration officials as Mr … Read More

Principles:
  1. Where the non Irish national parent of an Irish child seeks an injunction restraining his or her deportation, the Court cannot not look at the matter from the point of view of the non national parent, but must look at it from the perspective of the child.
  2. Article 41.2 of the Constitution of Ireland implies that all children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents, have the same equal rights to that which the Constitution postulates as representing the fundamental rights of children in a family setting,
  3. Non marital Irish children must be deemed to have an unenumerated personal right by virtue of Article 40.3.1 to have the same rights as children whose parents are married.
  4. Non marital Irish children have a right to the care and company of their parents.
Go Back

X Adeoye & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:X Adeoye & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan, J
Category:Citizenship, Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Citizenship, Country of Origin, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Expulsion Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Foreigner, Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Adeoye family sought to quash a decision of the (then) Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) pursuant to s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to refuse to revoke Mr Adeoye’s deportation order. Mr Adoeye, an architectural student from Nigeria married to an Irish citizen, who had been unsuccessful in an asylum application, and who had … Read More

Principles:It behoves the judicial branch of government to ensure that the fundamental rights in respect of marriage and family life are taken seriously and given “life and reality”. In deciding whether to revoke a deportation order made against the spouse of a citizen, the deciding Minister must weigh the rights of the applicants fairly.
Go Back

Ejerenwa v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:2011 IESC 41, 28th October 2011, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2011
Judge:Denham C.J.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Asylum Seeker, Border Crossing, Deportation, Detainee, Detention, Entry (Illegal), Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e9112918-ca1e-4951-b432-19ca4e38ba69/2011_IESC_41_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The High Court had found that the Applicant’s detention was in accordance with law. The Applicant appealed this to the Supreme Court. On the evening of 1 August 2011, Gardai stopped a bus which had crossed the … Read More

Principles:
  1. A detention order should contain clear information on its face as to the basis of its jurisdiction. In respect of s. 5(2)(a) of the Immigration Act 2003, in particular, it is necessary for a detention order to state on its face which provision or provisions of s. 5(1) of that Act apply.
  2. A warrant of detention is not required to make statements of law, and it is not necessary for a detention order to show on its face the time permitted for detention, where the period permitted for detention is a matter of general law and/or provided by statute.
Go Back

PJ & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:19 October 2011, 2011 IEHC 433, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Oct 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Protection (Humanitarian), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c639b2992f99484c8025798800520265
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicants had sought leave to challenge their deportation orders, and the respondent refused to undertake not to deport them beyond a certain date. The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction restraining their deportation. The issues before the Court were whether the applicants were entitled to an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the leave application, and, if so, whether the … Read More

Principles:

The phrase ‘stay of proceedings’ in Order 84 rule 20(7)(a) of the (N.B., pre 2012) Rules of the Superior Courts should be interpreted by reference to its basic underlying purpose, namely, to ensure that the High Court can make an order with suspensive effect in respect of both administrative, including deportation, as well as judicial decisions. The grant of a stay under r. 20(7(a) of the (N.B., pre 2012) Rules of the Superior Court is not governed by Campus Oil principles. Rather, an applicant is entitled to a stay pending the outcome of a leave application, absent special circumstances.

Special circumstances may include where the proceedings are doomed to fail or where there was no reasonable prospect that leave would be granted. While the mere fact that of medical resources in an applicant’s country of origin being significantly worse than those available in Ireland will not in itself justify judicial intervention, s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 presupposes that all relevant considerations, including humanitarian considerations, will be fairly examined prior to the making of a deportation order.

Go Back

BJSA (Sierra Leone) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:12 October 2011, 2011 IEHC 381, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing re an interlocutory injunction pending a determination of leave to seek judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:12 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Sierra Leone
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9b80483a-8d32-45b8-b7eb-39fb194500bd/2011_IEHC_381_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

In this case the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review of, inter alia, a decision refusing to grant him subsidiary protection on, essentially, two grounds: that the decision was invalid because the procedure in place under the Irish Regulations failed to properly transpose Article 4.1 of Directive 2004/83 … Read More

Principles:
  1. There is no deficiency in the Irish asylum legislative regime in respect of the failure to expressly transpose the provision in Article 4.2 of Directive 2004/38 re cooperation into Irish legislation.
  2. The co-operative nature of the first instance assessment phase in the Irish asylum process is reflected in ss. 8(1); 11(1); 11(2); 11C; and 16(6) of the Refugee Act 1996 as amended. 
  3. The deciding authority is not wholly relieved of any obligation of co-operation in appropriate cases. The process must conform to the normal rules of fair procedures.
  4. There is no requirement that a draft subsidiary protection decision be submitted to an applicant for comment before it is adopted.
  5. The right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal under Article 39 of the Directive 2005/85 applies only to subsidiary protection if it forms part of a unified procedure.
  6. There is no superior remedy in Irish law by way of appeal against a first instance determination of an asylum application, such that the procedures under the Refugee Act 1996 do not constitute a comparator with subsidiary protection for the purpose of applying the EU principle of equivalence.
  7. It is only since the requirements of Directive 2005/85 and, in particular, Annex 1, became effective in Irish law that the Commissioner is a “determining authority”, and that there is a right of appeal against a determination of the Commissioner to the Tribunal. Insofar as the provisions of the 1996 Act provide a two-stage determination for an asylum application including a right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal, this is only because of the manner in which the State adapted the arrangements of the 1996 Act in order to comply with the requirements of Directive 2005/85.
Go Back

Om v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:1st August 2011, 2011 IEHC 341, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2011
Judge:Hogan, G.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Order, Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bcf48dda-1963-4d70-b922-1aab45121c45/2011_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, David Fracis Om, who had unsuccessfully sought asylum, claimed to be Liberian, but his precise origins were a matter of doubt throughout the asylum process. The Refugee Applications Commissioner had found that he showed a distinct lack of knowledge of Liberian history and geography, … Read More

Principles:
  1. The question of whether a suspicion that a person intends to evade deportation, so as to allow for that person’s detention, is justified under s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999 is an objective one.
  2. Detention of a person (against whom a deportation order has been made) under s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrations Act 1999 must be for the purposes of effecting a deportation order, and it must be evident that the deportation can actually be effected within the eight week statutory period.
  3. Matters relevant to whether there is any likelihood that deportation can be effected within the maximum detention period are:
    whether there is an investigation of an Applicant’s nationality;
      whether it would be necessary for the Minister to consider the issue of refoulement afresh; and
        practicalities re organising deportation.
          Go Back