Bundhooa v The Minister for Justice and Equality

CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr Justice Max Barrett
Judgment Date05 March 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IEHC 132
Docket Number2016 No. 782 JR
Date05 March 2019

[2019] IEHC 132


Barrett J.

2016 No. 782 JR

– and –

Immigration – Section 4 permission to remain – Executive discretion – Applicant seeking leave to appeal – Whether a person whose permission to remain has expired and was previously granted under s. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 can apply to remain in the State

Facts: The applicant, Ms Bundhooa, pursuant to s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, applied to the High Court seeking leave to appeal the decision in Bundhooa v MJE [2018] IEHC 756. The decision concerned a narrow issue arising under s. 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004, viz. whether a person could seek a renewal/extension of a non-extant s. 4 permission where a previous s. 4 permission was obtained through fraud. The proceedings which led to the decision did not concern executive discretion. Her application fell to be determined in line with Glancré Teoranta v An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250, as supplemented in the immigration field by S.A. v MJE [2016] IEHC 646. The following points were proposed: Can a person whose permission to remain has expired and was previously granted under s. 4 of the 2004 Act apply to remain in the State? Is the Minister obliged to consider an application for a permission to remain, under a residual executive discretion when that application was made only with reference to s.4 of the 2004 Act? At the leave to appeal hearing, Ms Bundhooa: (i) invoked Luximon & ors v MJE [2018] IESC 24 and Sulaimon v Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 63; (ii) sought to elide the distinction between permission to reside on ‘Stamp 2’/’Stamp 4’ conditions on the basis that both issue under s. 4 of the 2004 Act; (iii) submitted that her application was for a time listed in the ‘Luximon List’ and that the court has limited the application of Luximon (and Balchand, also at [2018] IESC 24). The parties referred the court to Lin v MJE (No. 2) [2019] IEHC 73 as a decision of possible interest.

Held by Barrett J that the decision did not involve any point of law of exceptional public importance.

Barrett J held that he would decline to grant the leave sought.

Leave to appeal refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 5th March, 2019.

Pursuant to s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended, Ms Bundhooa seeks leave to appeal the decision in Bundhooa v. MJE [2018] IEHC 756 (the “Decision”). Her application falls to be determined in line with Glancré Teoranta...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Islam (A Minor) v The Minister for Foreign Affairs
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 June 2019
    ...... AND THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM RESPONDENT [2019] IEHC 559 Humphreys J. ... extensive discussion of this at the hearing and one can refer briefly in this regard to Bundhooa v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2018] IEHC 756 (Unreported, High Court, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT