S.O. (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice and Equality

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date21 October 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IEHC 728
Docket Number[2019 No. 621 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date21 October 2019

[2019] IEHC 728

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Richard Humphreys

[2019 No. 621 J.R.]

BETWEEN
S.O. (NIGERIA)
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT

(No. 2)

Judicial review – Leave to remain – Leave to appeal – Applicant seeking leave to appeal – Whether the applicant raised questions of exceptional public importance

Facts: Humphreys J, in S.O. (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 573 (Unreported, High Court, 23rd July, 2019), dismissed a challenge to a review decision refusing leave to remain under s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015. The applicant sought leave to appeal. The applicant’s first proposed question of exceptional public importance was “Must an applicant’s medical condition “engage” Article 8 ECHR in the assessment of the right to respect for private life under s.49(3) of the International Protection Act 2015 (the “Act”) and, if so, what is the threshold for engagement?” The applicant’s second proposed question was “What are the parameters of the Minister’s obligations in the consideration of non-refoulement under s. 50(2) of the Act?”

Held by Humphreys J that the first question was based on a completely false premise. Page 6 of the review stated that the applicant’s case “was considered under Section 49 ... Consideration was also given to private and family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.” It was expressly stated that both were considered. The respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, did not find that the applicant’s medical condition had to engage art. 8 in order to be relevant to s. 49. Humphreys J held that the question simply did not arise. Humphreys J held that this was not an appropriate case to raise the second issue because the applicant did not make any submissions whatsoever regarding refoulement. Humphreys J held that the actual proposition of law argued for by the applicant under the heading of refoulement lacked any common sense basis.

Humphreys J held that the leave to appeal application would be dismissed.

Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 21st day of October, 2019
1

In S.O. (Nigeria) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 573 (Unreported, High Court, 23rd July, 2019) I dismissed a challenge to a review decision refusing leave to remain under s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal. Since then a deportation order has been made against the applicant who has now brought a second set of judicial review proceedings against the Minister challenging that latest adverse decision [2019 No. 735 J.R.]. However, that is a separate case and it would simply be pandering to a delaying tactic to adjourn the present leave to appeal application pending the outcome of that new case, as the applicant sought.

2

I have considered the law in relation to leave...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • M.H. (Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...IEHC 573, [2019] 7 JIC 2313 (Unreported, High Court, 23rd July, 2019) and S.O. (Nigeria) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2019] IEHC 728, [2019] 10 JIC 2109 (Unreported, High Court, 21st October, 2019). These points do not improve with Ground 2 - alleged breach of audi alteram ......

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