TKB v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice O'Regan
• Judgment Date: 03 April 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 202
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 264 JR]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 03 April 2017

[2017] IEHC 202

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

O'Regan J.

[2017 No. 264 JR]

BETWEEN

T. K. B.

APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Grant of student visa – Extension of visa – Delay in decision-making – Mandamus

Facts: The applicant sought leave to apply for an order of mandamus for directing the respondent to decide the applicant's application for the extension of permission to remain in the State at the earliest. The applicant contended that due to the delay in deciding his application, his stay in the State had been rendered illegal as a consequence of which, he was denied access to education, housing, social assistance and employment. The respondent replied that it had intimated to the applicant that its decision-making process was under review in the light of judgment in the matter of Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IECA 382 and till that time no decision would be taken by the State against the applicant.

Ms. Justice O'Regan refused the applicant's application. The Court held that the application for an order for mandamus was not arguable as the applicant did not suffer any real prejudice by the delay in decision-making. The Court noted that the applicant was clearly told by the respondent that no adverse step would be taken against the applicant by the State, pending the determination of his application. The Court held that the respondent's intimation to the applicant that its decision-making process was under review should be taken to be in the interests of the applicant rather than viewing it adversely.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O'Regan delivered on the 3rd day of April, 2017

1 The applicant herein is a Mauritian national born in 1972. He came to Ireland in August 2007 and had a student visa permission to remain up until 25th February 2014.

2 The applicant made an application to the respondent for permission to remain in the State whether by extension or variation to his prior permission, on 18th March 2016.

3 The decision has not yet been made on his application and in his statement of grounds of 22nd March 2017 the applicant is seeking an order of mandamus compelling a decision on the application of 18th March 2016 together with costs. The grounds upon which relief is sought are:

1. The applicant is entitled to a decision within a reasonable time and the delay of more than one year is egregious and sufficiently unjustified as to be tantamount to a refusal.

2. Delay is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the principles of fair procedure and good administration and the applicant is prejudiced by the delay.

4 The applicant has sworn an affidavit bearing the date 22nd March 2017 to support his application for leave for mandamus. At para. 8 thereof he claims that he was...