I. & Ors -v- MJELR [2009] IEHC 61 (27 January 2009)

I. & Ors -v- MJELR [2009] IEHC 61 (27 January 2009)

The applicants failed to demonstrate any significant change in material circumstances or new facts arising after the making of the deportation order; the documentation submitted was similar in content to that previously considered; the respondent's decision not to exercise discretion under Regulation 4(2) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 61
Parties
Applicant: E. P. I.; Applicant: N. A. I. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, E. P. I.); Applicant: T. I. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, E. P. I.); Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Deportation Orders, Judicial Review, Refugee Status, Discretion of Minister, European Union Law, Fair Procedures
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Subsidiary Protection Deportation Orders Judicial Review Refugee Status Discretion of Minister +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. P. I.

Applicant

N. A. I. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, E. P. I.)

Applicant

T. I. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, E. P. I.)

Applicant

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent erred in refusing to consider the applicants' application for subsidiary protection under Regulation 4(2) of the 2006 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to consider new facts or altered circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion
  3. 3 Whether the respondent breached fair procedures or unlawfully fettered his discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate any significant change in material circumstances or new facts arising after the making of the deportation order; the documentation submitted was similar in content to that previously considered; the respondent's decision not to exercise discretion under Regulation 4(2) of the 2006 Regulations was rational, lawful, and sufficiently reasoned; there was no breach of fair procedures or unlawful fettering of discretion.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • Interlocutory injunction preventing deportation pending determination of this application is discharged