Abozaid v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 22 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 364
• Date: 22 May 2019
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 645 JR

[2019] IEHC 364

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2018 No. 645 JR

Between:

OSMAN ABDULBASIT AHMED ABOZAID

Applicant

– and –

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Respondent

Visa application – Irrationality – Reasonableness – Applicant seeking visa – Whether respondent’s decision was irrational

Facts: The applicant, Mr Abozaid, in April 2018, applied for a visa to re-enter Ireland. That application was refused by letter of May 2018. This was affirmed on appeal by letter of June 2018 (the Impugned Decision). Mr Abozaid complained that he had not been given adequate reasons for the Impugned Decision such that, e.g., he could bring informed judicial review proceedings and/or mend his hand in a future application.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that it did not accept that the Impugned Decision was in any way irrational or unreasonable or otherwise presented any issue at law.

Barrett J held that all the reliefs sought must be refused.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 22nd May, 2019.

1 In October 2014, Mr Abozaid arrived in Ireland from Sudan on a visa that expired in December 2014. He “over-stayed”, unsuccessfully applied twice during the over-stay period to be allowed to remain here, was made the subject of a deportation order, and finally elected to return to Sudan in March 2018, the deportation order having previously been revoked.

2 In April 2018, Mr Abozaid applied for a visa to re-enter Ireland. That application was refused by letter of May 2018, (the “Initial Decision”). This was affirmed on appeal by letter of June 2018 (the “Impugned Decision”) which states, inter alia: ‘ The reasons for refusal are as follows: [Reason 1]… Immigration history of applicant. [Reason 2]… the visa is sought for a specific purpose and duration: the applicant has not satisfied the visa officer that such conditions would be observed’.

3 Mr Abozaid complains that he has not been given adequate reasons for the Impugned Decision such that, e.g., he can bring informed judicial review proceedings and/or mend his hand in a future application. This is not accepted by the court. As to Reason 1, ministerial decisions are not rendered in a factual vacuum; they are given by reference to the facts presenting. Here, ‘ Immigration history of applicant’ is patently a reference to the facts stated at paragraph 1 above, and this was well understood by Mr Abozaid and his solicitor: the same reasoning was...