J.U.(Bangladesh) v The Minister for Justice and Equality

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date20 April 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 301
Docket Number[2011 874 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date20 April 2018

[2018] IEHC 301

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2011 874 J.R.]

BETWEEN
J.U. (BANGLADESH)
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

Deportation – Subsidiary protection – Certiorari – Applicant seeking certiorari of a subsidiary protection refusal and a deportation order – Whether the respondent failed to comply with minimum standards

Facts: The applicant, in March, 2011, applied for asylum on the basis of having been an NGO worker and having attempted to mediate a resolution between a rape victim, a perpetrator and some residents. He claimed to have been attacked as a result. His claim was rejected. The asylum claim did not specifically claim persecution on grounds of political opinion but rather on grounds of membership of a human rights body. In October, 2009 he applied for subsidiary protection, stating that the claim was based on political opinion, although the political opinion was unspecified. In August, 2011, subsidiary protection was refused and a deportation order issued. The applicant applied to the High Court seeking primarily certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation order. The statement of grounds was filed on 20th September, 2011. The applicant submitted that the first respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, addressed the asylum application rather than the subsidiary protection claim and failed to comply with minimum standards, particularly by failing to seek clarification from the applicant as to whether the new subsidiary protection application was based on the same grounds as the asylum claim or on a different basis. The applicant also suggested that the country material submitted by the applicant was not up-to-date and that the Minister failed to take the appropriate steps to rectify this. Humphreys J granted leave on 3rd October, 2017. In March, 2018, a s. 3(11) application for revocation of the deportation order was made without prejudice to the challenge to the validity of that order.

Held by Humphreys J that, given that the subsidiary protection claim very explicitly stated that it relied on the asylum claim, it was not necessary for the Minister to have sought clarification. Humphreys J noted that the subsidiary protection application made in October, 2009 relied on country material from 2006 and 2007, whereas the Minister’s decision of August, 2011 relied on country material from 2009 and 2010. Humphreys J held that it had not been established that the Minister had not looked at more up-to-date material or that there was more recent material that would have made a difference.

Humphreys J held that the application should be dismissed and that the respondents were released from their undertaking not to deport the applicant.

Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 20th day of April, 2018
1

In March, 2011 the applicant applied for asylum on the basis of having been an NGO worker and having attempted to mediate a resolution between a rape victim, a perpetrator and some residents. He claimed to have been attacked as a result. His claim was rejected. The asylum claim did not specifically claim persecution on grounds of political opinion but rather on grounds of membership of a human rights body.

2

In October, 2009 he applied for subsidiary protection, stating on p. 2 of the application that the claim was based on political opinion, although the political opinion was unspecified. There was no express acknowledgement that the applicant was changing his story as to the basis of his claim. If there was confusion as to the basis of the claim it seems to me to be the applicant's fault. Mr. O'Shea says that it is to be indirectly inferred from reliance on country material that the applicant was making a claim about political opinion. However, towards the end of the subsidiary protection application it states that the applicant is relying on the ‘ entire asylum file’ as ‘ documentary evidence’. The application also states that the facts are as set out in the asylum procedure. Far from stating what the political opinion is specifically, it refers back to the position that ‘ a more detailed account of the factual background will already be apparent from the file’. The asylum file does not state what the alleged political opinion is.

3

In August, 2011, subsidiary protection was refused and a deportation order issued. The statement of grounds was filed on 20th September, 2011. I granted leave on 3rd October, 2017, including on amended grounds. In March, 2018 a s. 3(11) application for revocation of the deportation order was made without prejudice to the challenge to the validity of that order.

4

I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Paul O'Shea B.L. for the applicant and Ms. Kilda Mooney B.L. for the respondents.

Whether a s. 3(11) application acknowledges the validity of the underlying deportation order
5

In O.O. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 165 (Unreported, High Court, 16th March, 2011) Cooke J. said at para. 4 that ‘ In many cases the introduction of an application to revoke a deportation order under s. 3(11) of the Act of 1999, necessarily implies an acceptance on the part of the applicant that there exists a valid deportation which requires to be revoked. In such cases the Court would normally insist that the applicant choose between the contradictory reliefs and abandon the claim to quash the deportation decision in order to pursue the application to quash the refusal of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hoey v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 December 2018
    ...(an infant) v. Minister for Justice & Equality [2015] 4 IR 200 at p. 208 and J.U. (Bangladesh) v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 301 at Para. 12. See also, S.I. 691/2011 Regulation 4 Similarly, in respect of Ground 10, it is argued that the respondent erred and acted in bre......

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