Introduction

The case of Z.P v Minister for Justice and Equality ([2025] IEHC 30) adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on January 22, 2025, presents a pivotal examination of procedural compliance in deportation proceedings under the International Protection Act 2015 (hereinafter "the 2015 Act"). The Applicant, Z.P., a Georgian national, contested a deportation order on the grounds that the Minister failed to consider new information submitted after the initial order was made but before its notification. Central to this challenge were interpretations of section 50 of the 2015 Act concerning the prohibition on refoulement and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, elucidating its implications for future deportation proceedings and the obligations of public authorities under Irish and EU law.

Summary of the Judgment

In Z.P v Minister for Justice and Equality, the Applicant Z.P. sought judicial review against a deportation order issued under section 51 of the 2015 Act, which was based on an assessment that repatriating him to Georgia did not violate the prohibition on refoulement as per section 50(1). Z.P. argued that the Minister neglected to consider additional information submitted after the initial deportation decision but before its notification, thereby breaching his rights under the Act and invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The High Court, presided over by Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, ultimately dismissed the Applicant's claims, affirming the Minister’s adherence to the statutory requirements and the absence of a legitimate expectation to consider late-submitted information.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Applicant leaned on several key precedents to bolster his argument:

• M.A.K v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 18 - Addressed procedural aspects of deportation orders and their issuance.
• Y v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2021] IEHC 82 - Focused on the necessity for authorities to adequately consider new evidence relevant to refoulement.
• J.I.D. v. Minister for Justice [2024] IEHC 164 - Discussed the limitations of revocation applications under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
• Elder v. Minister for Defence & Ors. [2019] IEHC 716 - Explored the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the context of public authority decisions.

The Minister countered with S.M. v. Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 611, asserting that failure to consider material not presented at the decision-making stage does not invalidate the deportation order.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously evaluated whether the Minister had fulfilled her legal obligations under section 50 of the 2015 Act. It was determined that:

• The Applicant failed to submit the new information "forthwith" as mandated by section 50(3) of the 2015 Act.
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable as there was no clear communication from the Minister promising consideration of late submissions.
• The precedents cited did not support extending the duty to reconsider decisions based on untimely information submissions.

Consequently, the Minister was deemed to have acted lawfully by proceeding with the deportation order without revisiting the initial decision.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the imperative for Applicants to adhere strictly to procedural timelines when submitting new information that could influence deportation decisions. It underscores the limited scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation within immigration proceedings, emphasizing that without explicit assurances from authorities, expectations cannot override statutory obligations. Future cases will likely reference this judgment to delineate the boundaries of procedural compliance and the non-binding nature of implied expectations in deportation contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prohibition on Refoulement (Section 50)

The principle of prohibition on refoulement under section 50 of the 2015 Act prevents the State from returning individuals to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. This fundamental protection aligns with international human rights obligations.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation allows individuals to expect that public authorities will follow certain procedures or policies based on past practices or explicit representations. However, it does not apply unless there is clear evidence of a promise or established practice that the authority intends to uphold.

Section 50(3) Obligations

Under section 50(3) of the 2015 Act, Applicants must promptly inform the Minister of any changes in circumstances that could affect the assessment of refoulement. Failure to do so "forthwith" can result in new information being disregarded in subsequent deportation decisions.

Section 3(11) Revocation Application

Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 allows the Minister to amend or revoke a deportation order. However, such applications do not automatically suspend the execution of the deportation order unless accompanied by an undertaking from the Minister.

Conclusion

The judgment in Z.P v Minister for Justice and Equality ([2025] IEHC 30) serves as a critical reference point for understanding the interplay between procedural obligations and substantive protections in deportation cases. It reaffirms the necessity for Applicants to comply rigorously with statutory timelines for submitting relevant information and clarifies the limited applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the absence of explicit assurances from public authorities. By upholding the Minister’s actions, the Court delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in immigration proceedings, emphasizing respect for established legal processes while maintaining the integrity of protections against unlawful refoulement.

Practitioners will find this judgment instrumental in advising clients on the importance of timely and comprehensive submissions in deportation matters. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with procedural compliance, ensuring that deportation orders are founded on a thorough and timely consideration of all pertinent information.