MK-v- The Minister for Justice And Equality (Approved) [2021] IEHC 275 (16 April 2021)

MK-v- The Minister for Justice And Equality (Approved) [2021] IEHC 275 (16 April 2021)

A proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR is not required for non-settled migrants unless exceptional circumstances are established; the reasons for refusal of permission to remain were adequately provided by reference to the original s.49(4) decision; the s.49(7) review decision was lawfully made by an IPO acting for the Minister; Article 14 ECHR and constitutional rights were not engaged as Article 8 was not engaged.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 275
Parties
Applicant: MK; Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
International Protection, Permission to Remain, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Proportionality Assessment, Duty to Give Reasons, Carltona Principle
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law International Protection Permission to Remain Article 8 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Proportionality Assessment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MK

Applicant

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR is required for non-settled migrants
  2. 2 Whether reasons for refusal of permission to remain were adequately provided
  3. 3 Whether the s.49(7) review decision was lawfully made by an IPO acting for the Minister

Ratio Decidendi

A proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR is not required for non-settled migrants unless exceptional circumstances are established; the reasons for refusal of permission to remain were adequately provided by reference to the original s.49(4) decision; the s.49(7) review decision was lawfully made by an IPO acting for the Minister; Article 14 ECHR and constitutional rights were not engaged as Article 8 was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Leave to remain refused
  • Deportation order affirmed