Decision maker did not address all humanitarian considerations in reviewing application for permission to remain in the State

Appeal of decision making process – appellant refused permission to remain in the State – review pursuant to s.49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015 – judicial review – international protection – the effect of a late Addendum to s.35 personal interview report on PTR Review – how the humanitarian considerations and refoulment provisions were dealt with in the review – entered the State in 2015 – challenge brought by amendment to judicial review – delay - challenge to the validity of s.35 report, s.39 recommendation and s.49(4) decision were brought out of time – no good reason for extension of time – High Court correct in holding those claims were time barred – no prejudice suffered by virtue of the fact the appellant did not have sight of the Addendum – not a breach of audi alteram partem – humanitarian considerations unduly restricted by the decision maker – Minister addressed the principle of non-refoulment sufficiently – decision maker did not address the humanitarian considerations appropriately – Minister set too high a bar only considering them in relation to Article 3 and 8 ECHR – conflated humanitarian considerations with ECHR rights – right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence – review did not accept that there were grounds for believing there was a real risk he would be exposed to a decline in his state in health resulting in intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy – review rejected that his medical condition reached the threshold of Article 3 ECHR – humanitarian considerations go beyond whether there will be a breach of ECHR rights – must be a consideration of personal and family rights in the overall context of the grant or refusal of permission to remain -integration into society and his intentions were not considered in the humanitarian section of the Review – onus on the Minister to deal with the Spirasi report – failure to indicate that additional issues had been correctly addressed was a failure to adequately explain the reasons for refusing review - appellant entitled to an Order of certiorari of the s.49(7) Review on this ground.