Challenge to decision to grant leave to remain in the state was correctly made ex parte

Judicial review – motion to set aside grant of leave - leave granted ex parte for two of the reliefs sought – Ryan J directed that the Minister be put on notice for the third relief – claimed that the applicants were required by statute to put the Minister on notice – claimed that the application was made outside the time limits – Afghani national refused subsidiary protection – granted leave to remain - challenging the adequacy of the Minister’s reasons – pursuant to what power was he granted leave to remain – whether it was correct for the applicant to apply for judicial review ex parte – applied for visas for his wife and children – refused on public policy grounds – Freedom of Information request – requested the precise reasons for the grant of leave – argues that the reasons given were not adequate – prohibition against refoulement – whether the decision to grant the applicant leave to remain was in effect an acknowledgement that he is entitled to protection on the basis of non-refoulement – procedures to be followed when apply for judicial review of asylum and immigration decisions – procedures to be adopted by the Minister when he proposes to make a deportation order – whether the applicant made the application on an ex parte basis to circumvent the application and effects of statutory provisions relating to the procedures for challenging an immigration decision – whether the application was made in breach of the time limits for judicial review – statutory interpretation – whether the power to grant leave to remain following a proposal to deport was pursuant to the power given to the Minister or his agent to grant a non-national permission to land – whether the Afghani national’s wife and children have standing – whether a challenge to the Minister’s decision to grant leave to remain to an Afghani national requires to be brought on notice to the Minister – unique challenge to a positive decision.