High Court grants judicial review of the decision refusing to revoke the deportation order made against a Ukrainian national who had been deported following conviction and sentence for sexual offences, on the grounds that the grant of permission to make a re-application for protection materially changed the legal and factual position.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Ukrainian national challenging the decision of the refusing to revoke the deportation order made against him - granted residency as the father of an Irish citizen – convicted of having no insurance – got divorced - cohabiting with a Lithuanian woman who became naturalized - convicted of the offence of sexual assault – 3 year sentence – deportation order made – application to be readmitted into the protection process – application refused – refused judicial review of deportation order – leave to appeal refused – leapfrog appeal refused – deported – appeal against readmittance granted - application form to the Strasbourg Court claiming that he was a victim of violations of arts. 8 and 13 of the ECHR – consented to him making another application for international protection – did not attend for interview as he was deported - Minister refused a request to revoke the deportation order – delay caused by solicitor changing office - Minister declined to give the applicant a visa to return to the State – leave granted - Strasbourg Court held the application to that court was inadmissible as manifestly unfounded - statutory framework in outline - complaint about the lack of an affidavit from the applicant personally - objection that mandatory relief is a non-starter - argument is made that the ministerial consent furnished under s. 22(13) of the 2015 Act does not imply a right to enter or remain - objection that the Minister is entitled to take a different view from the IPAT when dealing with revocation of the deportation order - question of giving permission to readmit the applicant to a protection process is part of the very same process as the actual re-application itself - objection that the 2015 Act does not apply to the applicant - objection that no purpose would be served by readmission because the ten-day time limit to make an application has expired - objection that the applicant is not eligible to make the claim he is making – European law objections - significant factual change - the grant of permission to make a re-application for protection – post-script – form of the order – decision refusing visa does not need to be quashed - refusal to revoke the deportation order quashed –