J.I. v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a Nigerian schoolteacher, applied for asylum in The State on 23rd April 2007, claiming persecution based on familial threats and political affiliations. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusal on 11th May 2007. The Plaintiff initially challenged this decision by judicial review proceedings instituted on 29th May 2007 but withdrew them on 3rd December 2009. Subsequently, the Plaintiff pursued an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which issued a negative recommendation on 22nd July 2010, noting that the Plaintiff admitted her asylum claim was fabricated and that she was effectively an economic migrant seeking a better life.

The Plaintiff applied for subsidiary protection on 4th October 2010, a status designed to protect persons at risk of serious harm but not qualifying as refugees. This application was refused on 20th April 2012, with the Minister relying on the Plaintiff's own admissions to reject her claim of fear of harm if returned to Nigeria. A deportation order was made on 9th May 2012.

The Plaintiff sought judicial review leave to challenge both the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation order, including a ground alleging that the subsidiary protection scheme was unlawfully "enmeshed" with deportation procedures, breaching European law. Procedural complexities ensued, including an ex parte application on 12th September 2012 that granted an interim injunction restraining deportation until 15th October 2012. However, no subsequent interlocutory application was issued by the Plaintiff, causing the injunction to lapse. The Plaintiff later obtained a further interim injunction in September 2014, which is the subject of the current decision.

The procedural history is marked by confusion, including multiple applications for leave to seek judicial review, failure to issue notices of motion within prescribed timeframes, and arguments by the Respondents that no proceedings currently exist due to these failures.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s application for subsidiary protection was lawfully refused given the procedural integration ("enmeshment") of subsidiary protection applications with deportation procedures.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation pending determination of judicial review proceedings.
3. Whether, given the procedural history, judicial review proceedings are extant and whether a fair issue to be tried exists.
4. Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a real risk of significant harm if deported, sufficient to overcome the default position favoring enforcement of deportation orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contends that the refusal of subsidiary protection is unlawful due to the "enmeshment" of the subsidiary protection scheme with deportation procedures, violating European law.
• The Plaintiff argues that deportation would deny her constitutional and European law rights, including effective access to the courts and protection under Article 47 of the EU Charter.
• The Plaintiff asserts a fair arguable case exists based on the leave granted by the court and outstanding grounds yet to be fully litigated.
• The Plaintiff claims a real risk of harm upon return to Nigeria, citing general conditions such as police corruption, extortion, violence, and lack of social welfare, as well as personal circumstances including lack of family support and risk of destitution.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintain that the Plaintiff’s own admissions that she is an economic migrant undermine any claim of fear of harm, rendering her subsidiary protection claim not credible.
• They argue that the procedural failures to issue a notice of motion within the prescribed time mean no judicial review proceedings are currently extant.
• The Respondents submit that the order granting leave to seek judicial review was limited to the "enmeshment" ground, effectively extinguishing other grounds.
• They rely on the Supreme Court’s guidance that the default position favors enforcing deportation orders unless the applicant establishes significant countervailing factors or a real risk of serious harm.
• The Respondents contend that practical difficulties of returning to The State after deportation do not justify an injunction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the complex procedural history, including multiple applications for leave to seek judicial review, an ex parte application, and failure to issue a notice of motion within the prescribed time limits. While the Respondents argued that no proceedings currently exist due to these procedural defaults, the Court considered the possibility that the proceedings might be restored upon proper explanation and justification, leaving this issue for future determination.

In assessing the application for an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s guidance in Okunade, which establishes a default presumption favoring enforcement of deportation orders unless the applicant demonstrates significant countervailing factors or a real risk of serious harm.

The Plaintiff’s argument that deportation would cause practical difficulties in returning to The State was rejected as insufficient to displace the default position, consistent with the Supreme Court’s view that ordinary disruption does not justify injunctive relief.

Regarding the risk of harm, the Court noted that neither the Refugee Appeals Tribunal nor the Minister accepted that the Plaintiff faced a real risk of harm. The Plaintiff’s evidence was limited to general assertions about adverse conditions in Nigeria without identifying any personal history of harm or credible source of persecution. The Court found a complete failure to establish a credible basis for a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Court refused the application for an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final ruling is REFUSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s application to restrain deportation pending judicial review proceedings is denied. The Court did not find a credible basis for a real risk of significant harm sufficient to justify injunctive relief. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the Court applied existing principles regarding deportation and interlocutory relief. The procedural irregularities noted may affect the status of the judicial review proceedings themselves, but this decision does not resolve those procedural questions.