Challenges to refusal of permission to land are misconceived

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Indian national challenging decision refusing him permission to land and proposal to deport – overstayed student visa – application for permission to land - Minister refused the application on the grounds that given the lack of a subsisting permission, his case did not fall to be dealt with under s. 4 of the 2004 Act – proposal to deport - no deportation order in fact made – Chinese national challenging the decision refusing him permission to land and proposal to deport – overstayed illegally – Minister wrote indicating that the application would not be dealt with under s. 4 of the 2004 Act as the applicant was illegally present - proposal to deport made - discovery motions – relevance of documents not demonstrated - cross-examination applications - court should lean in favour of cross-examination even in judicial review if there is a genuine conflict of fact, here the conflict is insufficiently developed - challenge to a mere proposal is generally inappropriate - an applicant cannot challenge a decision on the basis of a point not actually made - applications related to the 2004 Act, they are misconceived - Section 4 of the 2004 Act is not a free-standing mechanism to grant permission to anyone who happens to be unlawfully present in the State – insofar as the applications relate to a process outside the 2004 Act, the applicants are not as yet disadvantaged – discretion - discrimination/arbitrary operation – judicial reviews refused.