Man illegally in the State since 2005 loses challenge over refusal of leave to remain
Pakistani national unsuccessfully tried to enter into two marriages, judge notes
A review on medical and other grounds reaffirmed that refusal and a deportation order issued in August 2019. He took High Court proceedings arguing th
A Pakistani man with health conditions who stayed and worked illegally in the State after his eight month student visa expired in 2005 has lost his High Court challenge over being refused leave to remain.
Ms Justice Tara Burns noted the man has remained unlawfully in the State since 2005 except for a time when he left here on a false Portugese passport and claimed protection in Hungary.
He worked illegally here, unsuccessfully tried to enter into two marriages, and suffers from TB, urethra structuring disease and depression, she said.
Having been detected by the immigration authorities, he applied for protection in September 2012 but was refused. In 2018, he was also refused permission to remain here.
A review on medical and other grounds reaffirmed that refusal and a deportation order issued in August 2019.
He took High Court proceedings arguing the review conclusion was irrational, unreasonable and in breach of fair procedures and that the Minister for Justice failed to adequately consider his rights, including private and family life rights, and his serious health condition.
In her recently published judgment, Ms Justice Burns said the medical evidence provided to the Minister did not establish the man’s likely future condition as a matter of probability, except for a high risk of urinary tract infections. His treating consultant otherwise only referred to him potentially requiring further surgeries and procedures.
A second difficulty was his failure to produce any evidence to the Minister concerning what medical treatment, or lack thereof, he could avail of in Pakistan.
While he is clearly suffering from a significant medical condition, no evidence was put before the Minister which raised any engagement of rights under Article 3 – to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment — or Article 8 — to private and family life — of the ECHR, she said.
The Minister clearly had regard to humanitarian considerations and her decision refusing permission to remain was not unreasonable and was open to her to make, the judge held.
The Minister was not obliged to further consider the man’s depression and TB diagnosis in the review as she had earlier considered those and the review related only to new factors, she said.
The Minister was also “absolutely entitled” to have regard to the man’s illegal status here over years and that he worked here without permission and left on a false passport to seek protection in Hungary after his protection claim was refused here.
The Minister had not, in her review, characterised his two attempted marriages as marriages of convenience but the Minister was entitled to have regard to events surrounding those, including the man’s inability during his protection interview to recollect the surname of the first woman he had proposed to marry, the judge added.
On foot of those and other findings, the challenge was dismissed.