PNS (Cameroon) v Ministry for Justice and Equality
IE: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to remain in the territory ceases once the determining authority made a recommendation to dismiss a subsequent application.
The applicant unsuccessfully applied for international protection and a deportation order was issued on 13 January 2017. The applicant contested the order and requested its revocation. On 10 October 2017 he made steps for a new application for international protection, application that was rejected again after a preliminary examination by the International Protection Office. He appealed against the negative recommendation in the subsequent application and the appeal remained pending. The applicant was detained on 31 May 2018 for failure to respect the deportation order. The applicant contested the detention measure and was released on 6 June 2018. The applicant’s lawyer requested the Minister of Justice to take a decision on the deportation. He further requested leave to apply for judicial review by arguing that he did not receive a first instance decision within the meaning of the Asylum Procedures Directive and he should have the right to remain pending a decision at first instance and the outcome of the appeal.
The High Court adopted two judgements in the case: on 16 July 2018 it stated that there is no entitlement to stay in the country pending the outcome of the subsequent application and that the right to stay ceased following the IPO recommendation on the application to be readmitted to the process of making an application. In the second judgement of 27 July 2018 all claims were rejected.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after having reiterated the provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive and the national legislation on relevant authorities involved and their respective roles in the international protection procedure. It has been underlined that the IPO and the Minister for Justice are first instance authorities while the IPAT has its role in the appeal (second instance determination). The Supreme Court considered that the right to remain on the territory ceases once a recommendation is made by IPO and that there is no distinction between recommendation and decision from IPO, both having the same effect to end the first instance procedure. The Supreme Court concluded thus that the applicant has no longer a right to remain under the Directive or the International Protection Act 2015 after the IPO has adopted a recommendation or decision. Consequently, there is no right to remain pending the outcome of an appeal. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that the court is competent to dismiss an application for judicial review under the 2015 Act but it must exercise it only when the applicant’s conduct can be considered serious and significant abuse in the entire context of the case.
Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures; Subsequent Application;
Courts Service of Ireland
EASO Courts and Tribunals Network
Ireland, Supreme Court, PNS (Cameroon) v Ministry for Justice and Equality, S:AP:IE:2018:000118, 31 March 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.