Bundhooa v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 132
• Date: 05 March 2019
• Docket Number: 2016 No. 782 JR

[2019] IEHC 132

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2016 No. 782 JR

Between:

DHANWANTEE BUNDHOOA

Applicant

– and –

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Respondent

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.

1 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...