ZM v The minister for Justice & anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 62 (25 January 2021)

ZM v The minister for Justice & anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 62 (25 January 2021)

The applicant failed to present any new, truly materially different evidence or circumstances that had not already been considered or capable of being presented at the time of the original deportation order. The Minister was entitled to rely on previous unchallenged findings, was not obliged to authenticate the documents, and gave adequate reasons for the decision. The process was not interactive and the onus was on the applicant to put forward his best case. No breach of fair procedures or irrationality was established.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 62
Parties
Applicant: ZM; First Respondent: The Minister for Justice; Second Respondent: Commissioner of An Garda Siochana
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Certiorari of Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Deportation, Revocation of Deportation Order, Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Authentication of Evidence
Immigration Law Administrative Law Deportation Revocation of Deportation Order Judicial Review Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Authentication of Evidence

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZM

Applicant

The Minister for Justice

First Respondent

Commissioner of An Garda Siochana

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Certiorari of Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister failed to afford fair procedures or comply with audi alteram partem in refusing to revoke the deportation order
  2. 2 Whether the Minister was obliged to authenticate documents submitted by the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to present any new, truly materially different evidence or circumstances that had not already been considered or capable of being presented at the time of the original deportation order. The Minister was entitled to rely on previous unchallenged findings, was not obliged to authenticate the documents, and gave adequate reasons for the decision. The process was not interactive and the onus was on the applicant to put forward his best case. No breach of fair procedures or irrationality was established.

Court Disposition

Relief refused

Orders

  • Application for certiorari refused
  • Order for costs in favour of the Respondent against the Applicant