K.A. (Ghana) v The Minister for Justice and Equality

JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date17 September 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 511
Docket Number[2018 No. 544 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date17 September 2018



[2018] IEHC 511

Humphreys J.

[2018 No. 544 J.R.]



Immigration and asylum – Subsidiary protection – Certiorari – Applicant seeking certiorari of a deportation order – Whether it was proportionate to quash the decision

Facts: The applicant came to Ireland on 29th June, 2015 and applied for asylum. That application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. He appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The application was referred to the International Protection Office (IPO). On 25th August, 2017 the IPO rejected the asylum and subsidiary protection claims and the applicant was notified under s. 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 that he was being refused permission to remain in the State. On 8th January, 2018 he was informed that an appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) had been rejected. On 31st January, 2018, submissions under s. 49 of the 2015 Act were made and on 16th May, 2018 a review under s. 49(9) of the Act took place. On 5th June, 2018 a deportation order was made, and was notified on the 14th June, 2018. On 9th July, 2018, the applicant applied to the High Court seeking certiorari of the deportation order.

Held by Humphreys J that there was a shortcoming in the articulation of reasons on behalf of the first respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, as to whether what was intended to be conveyed was that even if the applicant's account was correct, the country material does not support a risk of refoulement or alternatively, that the refoulement question has to be assessed in terms of the Minister having endorsed the rejection of the applicant's credibility so that his claim of refoulement has to be judged in the context of whether refoulement arises by virtue of a status merely as a failed asylum seeker. Given that what was at issue was simply an ambiguity, rather than a fundamental or irremediable difficulty, Humphreys J held that it would be disproportionate to quash the decision on this ground, particularly because the Minister may have had perfectly valid reasoning in mind. Humphreys J held that the appropriate order was to exercise the jurisdiction to direct further reasons.

Humphreys J held that he would direct the Minister to provide further reasons for the finding at section 4 of the s. 49(9) review as to (a) whether the Minister adopted the IPAT rejection of the applicant's credibility generally and (b) whether the Minister's reference to country material not supporting the risk of refoulement should be construed as dealing with (i) the applicant merely as a failed asylum seeker or (ii) the applicant by reference to his own account, even if that account is correct. Humphreys J held that he would adjourn the proceedings for a period to be fixed to enable those reasons to be provided and to be considered on behalf of the applicant.


To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • M.N. (Malawi) v The Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 Junio 2019
    ...distinct on a number of grounds from the case on which the applicant majors, K.A. (Ghana) v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 511 [2018] 9 JIC 1703 (Unreported, High Court, 17th September, 2018). In that case, the applicant did make submissions under s. 49(9) (see para. 2). Rel......
  • M.M. v Chief International Protection Officer
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 14 Octubre 2022
    ...if the appellant were returned to her country of origin. The appellant had relied upon K.A. (Ghana) v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 511 in which the High Court (Humphreys J.) held that there was an ambiguity in the reasoning of the decision-maker such that proper reasons ha......
  • MM v Chief International Protection Officer, The Minister for Justice and The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 Enero 2021
    ...High Court, Burns J, 12 January 2021). Burns J held that the ambiguity arising in KA (Ghana) v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 511 did not arise as the decision made it clear that the second respondent was not revisiting the claims made by the applicant which were rejected by ......

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