FZ v Minister for Justice (Approved) [2024] IEHC 683 (28 November 2024)

FZ v Minister for Justice (Approved) [2024] IEHC 683 (28 November 2024)

The applicant did not qualify under either strand of the regularisation scheme, and there was no evidence of unlawful fettering of ministerial discretion or discrimination. The scheme's classification was rational, legitimate, and not arbitrary, capricious, or disproportionate. Relief was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 683
Parties
Applicant: FZ; Respondent: Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Regularisation Scheme, Ministerial Discretion, Discrimination, Rationality of Classification
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Regularisation Scheme Ministerial Discretion Discrimination Rationality of Classification

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FZ

Applicant

Minister for Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister unlawfully fettered discretion in refusing the applicant's request under the regularisation scheme
  2. 2 Whether the scheme's eligibility criteria unlawfully discriminate against the applicant contrary to Article 40.1 of the Constitution and provisions of the ECHR and Charter of Fundamental Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not qualify under either strand of the regularisation scheme, and there was no evidence of unlawful fettering of ministerial discretion or discrimination. The scheme's classification was rational, legitimate, and not arbitrary, capricious, or disproportionate. Relief was refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • relief claimed refused
  • provisional order for costs in favour of respondent, subject to written submissions within 10 days