B.M. -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2014] IEHC 25 (21 January 2014)

B.M. -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2014] IEHC 25 (21 January 2014)

The refusal to revoke the subsidiary protection decision and to permit a fresh application was not unlawful because the reasons for refusal were based on delay and failure to challenge the original decision, not on a blanket prohibition. There was no legal obligation to consider new evidence or to provide a remedy equivalent to that available for asylum decisions. The applicant failed to establish an arguable legal error.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 25
Parties
Applicant: B. M.; Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to seek judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Deportation Orders, Judicial Review Procedure, Non Refoulement, Principle of Equivalence, Revocation of Administrative Decisions
Immigration Law Administrative Law European Union Law Subsidiary Protection Deportation Orders Judicial Review Procedure Non Refoulement Principle of Equivalence +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. M.

Applicant

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to revoke a negative subsidiary protection decision and refusal to permit a further application for subsidiary protection was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Department of Justice unlawfully fettered its discretion or failed to consider new evidence
  3. 3 Whether the principle of equivalence under EU law required a remedy for subsidiary protection decisions similar to that for asylum decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to revoke the subsidiary protection decision and to permit a fresh application was not unlawful because the reasons for refusal were based on delay and failure to challenge the original decision, not on a blanket prohibition. There was no legal obligation to consider new evidence or to provide a remedy equivalent to that available for asylum decisions. The applicant failed to establish an arguable legal error.

Court Disposition

Leave to seek judicial review refused