ADM v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 603 (20 September 2021)

ADM v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 603 (20 September 2021)

The Respondent's decision was open to her on the evidence provided; no material error of fact, irrationality, unreasonableness, or disproportionality was established. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a sustaining relationship, and the Respondent was entitled to make her assessment based on the material before her.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 603
Parties
Applicant: ADM; Respondents: The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
International Protection, Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Permission to Remain, Standard of Proof, Discretionary Decision Making
Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Protection Deportation Article 8 ECHR Permission to Remain Standard of Proof Discretionary Decision Making

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM

Applicant

The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent made a material error of fact in refusing permission to remain under s.49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent applied an inappropriately high standard of proof
  3. 3 Whether the decision was irrational, unreasonable, or disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent's decision was open to her on the evidence provided; no material error of fact, irrationality, unreasonableness, or disproportionality was established. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a sustaining relationship, and the Respondent was entitled to make her assessment based on the material before her.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Relief sought refused
  • Order for costs in favour of the Respondent against the Applicant