EN v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 585 (09 September 2021)

EN v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 585 (09 September 2021)

The Minister lawfully relied on the findings of the IPO and IPAT, applying the correct standard of proof (balance of probabilities) for establishing facts, and the 'serious risk' test for refoulement is not materially different from the 'real risk' test used in subsidiary protection. No invalidity was established in the s. 49(7) decision or the Deportation Order.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 585
Parties
Applicant: EN; Respondents: Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused; Respondents' costs awarded against Applicant.
Legal Topics
International Protection, Refoulement, Standard of Proof, Deportation, Subsidiary Protection, European Convention on Human Rights
Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Protection Refoulement Standard of Proof Deportation Subsidiary Protection European Convention on Human Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EN

Applicant

Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister applied the correct standard of proof in considering the prohibition of refoulement under section 50(1)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether reliance on prior determinations of the IPO and IPAT was lawful for the refoulement assessment
  3. 3 Compatibility of the Minister's approach with Article 3 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister lawfully relied on the findings of the IPO and IPAT, applying the correct standard of proof (balance of probabilities) for establishing facts, and the 'serious risk' test for refoulement is not materially different from the 'real risk' test used in subsidiary protection. No invalidity was established in the s. 49(7) decision or the Deportation Order.

Court Disposition

Relief refused; Respondents' costs awarded against Applicant.

Orders

  • Refusal of judicial review relief
  • Order for costs in favour of Respondents