Jin Liang Li v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

adminLeave a Comment


Li
Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 493
Nature of Proceedings:Application pursuant to Article 40.4 of the Constitution
Judgment Date/s:28 Nov 2012
Category:Detention, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Detainee, Detention, Detention Facility, Enforcement Measure, Illegal Stay, Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Non-national, Overstay(er), Refugee, Removal, Repatriation, Return (Forced), Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:China
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7c7aa7f-d1f0-445a-a68d-2aa94dc25131/2012_IEHC_493_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts The applicant was a Chinese national who was living in the State for approximately 13 years, having overstayed his visa entitlements and had been working illegally. The applicant refused to cooperate in obtaining travel documents for him and it later transpired that he had another valid passport unknown to the Irish authorities. He was arrested and as arrangements were … Read More

Principles:

The power to arrest an asylum applicant under section  9(8)(a) of the Refugee Act and detain him or her for up to 21 days is a form of preventive civil detention.

Given the constitutional guarantee in Article 40.4.1 the objective necessity for such detention must be compellingly established. The constitutional considerations must inform, and by necessity, delimit these powers to arrest and detain a person. The words ‘public order’ are juxtaposed beside ‘national security’ and this meant that the phrase ‘public order’ must be given its narrower and more restricted meaning. In that context the reference to public order referred to the threat posed to fundamental state interests by the likely conduct or even, in particularly unusual cases, the very presence of the applicant for asylum in the State.

Conduct which flouted the immigration regime, such as not cooperating or working illegally, was not conduct which threatened fundamental state interests.

Go Back

Hussein v Labour Court & Anor

Respondent/Defendant:Labour Court & Anor
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Aug 2012
Judge:Hogan J
Category:Employment
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, Employment (Illegal), Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Exploitation, Foreigner, Immigration (Illegal), Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Migrant Worker, Migration (Exploitative), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, Mr Hussein, and the notice party, Mr Younis are Pakistani nationals and cousins. In 2002, Mr Hussein, who operates a restaurant in Ireland, recruited his cousin to work as a Tandoori chef. Mr Younis maintained that he was required to work seven days a week with no holidays, that he was paid what amounted to pocket money … Read More

Principles:

Neither the Rights Commissioner nor the Labour Court can lawfully entertain an application for relief in respect of an employment contract that is substantively illegal for want of a work permit. Undocumented migrant workers do not benefit from employment legislation, even where they are not responsible for their unlawful status.

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

LAT & Ors v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors

adminLeave a Comment


Tijani
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/ABA421A317AFC24B80257A1500503C9E?Open&Highlight=0,LAT,~language_en~
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The application for judicial review presented a single issue of law, i.e., whether a deportation order made under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 must be made personally by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The deportation order had been made in the name of the Minister by Noel Waters, the Director General of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration … Read More

Principles:

The Minister for Justice and Equality does not have to make deportation orders under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 personally. The Carltona doctrine applies to the making of deportation orders under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999.

Go Back

Troci v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported High Court (Hogan J) 2nd November 2011 2011 IEHC 405
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2cb16ab5-b669-4336-a856-160050889e46/2011_IEHC_405_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, Ervis Troci, an Albanian national, was arrested pursuant to s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999. He had sought asylum, and his application had been rejected and he subsequently sought to remain in the State for humanitarian reasons. While in the State, the … Read More

Principles:The suspicion on the part of an immigration officer or member of the Garda Siochana underpinning the arrest of a person against whom a deportation order is in force under s. 5(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1999, must refer to some overt act or deed, including statements, on the part of the arrested person, or some external piece of intelligence which suggests that there is a risk that such a person will seek to evade deportation.
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