Mauritian national failed to establish that she had legitimate expectation for permission to remain in State

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Mauritian national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse to consider her application for permission to remain pursuant to “Conclusion of 2004 Student Probationary Extension” Scheme – argued that she had a legitimate expectation that her application pursuant to the Scheme would be considered in full and on the basis of the criteria of the Scheme as published – argued that in refusing to consider her application pursuant to the Scheme the minister operated an unduly fixed policy – she complains that she was excluded from eligibility solely on the basis of a strict cut-off date of 1st January, 2005 - implied representation made to her that she came within the ambit of the Scheme because of two prior permissions secured - on the basis of such asserted representation she took up employment with her present employer and therefore asserts that it would be unjust to permit the respondent to resile from the representation – in refusing her the minister applied a fixed policy amounting to an unlawful fettering of her discretion - basis for suggesting that there was an implied representation - arrived in Ireland as a student on 16th August, 2006 - seeking documents under the Freedom of Information legislation – argued that in granting her permission under the Student Probationary Extension Scheme in October, 2012 there was an implied representation that she came within the remit of the Scheme - notice would clearly identify to her that she was not eligible - referred to students residing in Ireland from before 1st January, 2005 - not a student at the time she applied on 23rd October, 2014 and was not required to produce any documents to the effect that she was a student - runs counter to the Scheme as first advertised to the public on the INIS website - cannot exhibit the documents that she asserts comprised the application under the Scheme - evidential deficit - a clear conflict of factual evidence – Court did not accept that the lack of clarity amounts to evidence that in fact the application form which she signed in person at the INIS office was under the relevant Scheme - would have been impossible for her to rely on the extension involved in the Scheme as a basis for taking up her employment - principles governing legitimate expectation - when dealing with a non-statutory discretionary power, legitimate expectation will arise only if the Court thinks there is no good public policy reason why it should not arise - the expectation must be objectively justifiable – Court not satisfied that a representation was made to her as contended – Court not satisfied that she has demonstrated that the form she executed on 23rd October, 2012 was in fact a form in compliance with the relevant Scheme – Court not satisfied that the expectation which she says she had was relied upon by her to take up employment as this expectation arose - nothing advanced to the Court nor was there anything advanced to the Minister which suggests that it would be unfair to her that the alleged promise or representation was not fulfilled - difficult to draw the line between permissible guidelines and impermissible, rigid and inflexible policies - individual assessment is required - no solemn representation made by the State to her nor had the instant applicant fundamentally altered her circumstances – she has not established a legitimate expectation – she has not demonstrated that she has made any substantial representation to the Minister which the Minister refused to consider so as to argue that there was an impermissibly rigid and inflexible policy application – judicial review refused.