N (U) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. JUSTICE HEDIGAN
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 402
• Court: High Court
• Date: 28 November 2008

[2008] IEHC 402

THE HIGH COURT

[739 JR/2005]

N (U) v Min for Justice & Ors

BETWEEN

U. N.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

AND

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

NOTICE PARTY

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

BUTUSHA v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 29.10.2003 2003/7/1531

ABDUKHAREEM v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP GILLIGAN 7.7.2006 (EX TEMPORE)

EB (KOSOVO) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2008 3 WLR 178

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(6)

LUPASCU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP PEART 21.12.2004 2004/28/6549 2004 IEHC 400

IMMIGRATION

Deportation

Revocation - Judicial review - Leave - Substantial grounds - Claim that decision to make deportation order based on information which was two years and nine months old and out of date - Whether breach of fair procedures - Substantial grounds - Delay - Whether any prejudice to applicant - Additional representations not made by applicant - Whether any relevant or significant changes in applicant's circumstances - Butusha v Minister for Justice (Unrep, Peart J, 29/10/2003), Abdukhareem v Minister for Justice (Unrep, Gilligan J, 7/7/2006), EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41, [2008] 3 WLR 178 distinguished; Lupascu v Minister for Justice [2004] IEHC 400, (Unrep, Peart J, 21/12/2004) followed - Immigration Act 1999 (No 22), s 3(6) - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Relief refused (2005/739JR - Hedigan J - 28/11/2008) [2008] IEHC 402

N(U) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts: The applicant sought leave to challenge by way of judicial review the decision of the respondent making a deportation order in respect of her. Following the making of negative decisions by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, representations were made on behalf of the applicant seeking leave to remain in the State. Those representations were received by the respondent in July 2002. The respondent subsequently made a deportation order in respect of the applicant in May 2005. The applicant submitted that the respondent breached fair procedures in issuing a deportation order based on information that was two years and nine months old and which was therefore out of date.

Held by Hedigan J. in refusing the application: That notwithstanding the fact that the delay between the receipt of the applicant’s representations and the making of the deportation order was inordinate and undesirable, that delay did not result in any prejudice to the applicant. There were no relevant or significant changes in the applicant’s circumstances between 2002 and 2005.

Reporter: L.O’S.

1 JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE HEDIGAN, delivered on the 28th day of November, 2008.

2 1. The applicant is seeking leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ("the Minister") to make a deportation order in respect of her.

Background

3 2. The applicant, who is a national of Nigeria, applied for asylum upon arrival in Ireland on 12 ^th September, 2000. The basis of her application for asylum is immaterial for the purposes of the present challenge. She received a negative recommendation from the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and her appeal from that decision was rejected by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. She was then informed that the Minister was proposing to deport her, and was invited to make representations seeking leave to remain in the State. Representations were made on her behalf, which were received by the Minister's Department on 31 ^st July, 2002. There was no...