Ministerial consent required in order to have second application for subsidiary protection processed

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – national from the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse to consider an additional subsidiary protection application after his initial refusal – refused asylum, leave to remain and subsidiary protection – deportation order issued – application to revoke the deportation order rejected –application to be re-admitted into the asylum process rejected - made application to revoke subsidiary protection decision – no legal basis for this application - where an asylum or subsidiary protection decision is alleged to require revocation, the appropriate course would appear to be an application to be re-admitted into the asylum process - a person to whom the Minister has refused to give a declaration of refugee status may not make a further application for a declaration without the consent of the Minister – made second application for subsidiary protection – Minister refused to process the application on the grounds that ministerial consent was required - Minister confirmed that a second application for subsidiary protection can only be considered in the context of an application to be readmitted into the asylum process – he argued that it would be unlawful to deport him pending the determination of his second subsidiary protection application - applicants shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure, until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the procedures at first instance – argued that a re-application for asylum is a first instance decision - no right to remain pending an appeal against a first instance decision - suspensive effect only applies in relation to a first application which is not abusive, and therefore does not apply to either a second or subsequent re-application or even to a first re-application if that first application is made “in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision which would result in his or her imminent removal from that Member State” – principle of equivalence – no merit to any complaint that the subsidiary protection system is subject to the principle of equivalence - principle of effectiveness - delay is inherent in the two stage system – undue delay between decisions - cannot raise this issue because not only has he not made an application to be readmitted to the asylum process, which was live as of the time of issuing the proceedings, but he has not demonstrated any basis for doing so by reference to a change of circumstances since his previous application for re-admittance - principle of effectiveness does not assist an applicant who has no grounds .