IN v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 586 (09 September 2021)

IN v Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 586 (09 September 2021)

The Minister for Justice was entitled to rely on the findings of the IPO and IPAT in the absence of new evidence or submissions, and the standard of proof applied was correct. The applicant failed to establish any legal error or procedural impropriety in the s. 49(7) review decision or the deportation order. The absence of a valid Section 35 report did not invalidate the s. 49 decisions, and the prohibition of refoulement was properly considered.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 586
Parties
Applicant: IN; Respondent: Minister for Justice; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Relief refused on ground e(3); proceedings adjourned on grounds e(1) and (2) pending outcome of HK v. Minister for Justice appeal; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
International Protection, Deportation, Prohibition of Refoulement, Standard of Proof, Judicial Review Procedure
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law International Protection Deportation Prohibition of Refoulement Standard of Proof Judicial Review Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IN

Applicant

Minister for Justice

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister for Justice erred in law in refusing permission to remain and issuing a deportation order under the International Protection Act 2015, specifically regarding the prohibition of refoulement and the standard of proof applied.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a valid and lawful Section 35 report invalidated the s. 49(7) review decision and deportation order.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister was entitled to rely on the findings of the IPO and IPAT in the absence of new evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister for Justice was entitled to rely on the findings of the IPO and IPAT in the absence of new evidence or submissions, and the standard of proof applied was correct. The applicant failed to establish any legal error or procedural impropriety in the s. 49(7) review decision or the deportation order. The absence of a valid Section 35 report did not invalidate the s. 49 decisions, and the prohibition of refoulement was properly considered.

Court Disposition

Relief refused on ground e(3); proceedings adjourned on grounds e(1) and (2) pending outcome of HK v. Minister for Justice appeal; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Refusal of relief sought on ground e(3) (standard of proof).
  • Proceedings adjourned into HK holding list on grounds e(1) and (2) (Section 35 report issues) pending Court of Appeal decision.