Man with alleged Isis links loses challenge to deportation

A man allegedly involved with Islamic terrorists has lost his High Court action aimed at preventing his deportation to Jordan.

The State alleges the man is the "foremost organiser and facilitator of travel by extremists prepared to undertake violent action" on behalf of Islamic State and its "main recruiter" in Ireland.

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, denies the claims. He denies he has consulted with senior violent extremist leaders outside Ireland, represents a threat to national security or recruits members for Islamic extremist groups.

He claims he was tortured in Jordan during the 1990s due to his political activities and faced being tortured if sent back there.

The decision to deport him breached his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, he claimed

He has lived here since 2000, on the basis of having an Irish citizen child. Last year, the authorities decided not to renew his residency permit because the child had not been residing in the State and was living with his mother elsewhere.

After being told the State wanted to deport him, the man sought asylum and alleged the Minister has unlawfully refused to make a decision on his application.

In his proceedings, he sought orders setting aside the deportation order and compelling the Minister accept his application for asylum. He also asked the court to find he does not require the Minister’s consent to apply under the 1996 Refugee Act for a declaration of refugee status.

In a detailed judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the man's proceedings.

This was not a case where a person who had previously been tortured was being deported to face further torture, he said. Rather it was a case where the man had failed to persuade the Minister “either of the veracity of his account of previous ill treatment or of a real risk of future ill treatment”.

The Minister had weighed up the mans’ claims concerning past torture and fears of future torture if returned to Jordan and the man had failed to show the Minister’s decision was unreasonable or any illegality in her assessment of his case.

There was nothing to support the proposition the Jordanian authorities currently known anything at all about the man, the judge said. There was a “fundamental evidential gap” and no evidence to show any risk personal to the man who had put very limited information before the court and Minister.

There were many details of claim of torture that could have legitimately have been expected to be put before the Minister which were not and a detailed basis for the man’s fears of torture if returned to Jordan were not set out, he said. A “mere possibility of ill treatment” was not sufficient.

The judge has adjourned the matter for a week to facilitate any possible appeal. The man was in court for the judgment.

In opposing the proceedings, the Minister denied any failure to properly take into account the risk of the man being tortured if deported to Jordan and said all evidence submitted on his behalf was considered.

The State also said there were a number of “inconsistencies and contradictions” in applications for asylum made on the man’s behalf in 2000 and 2015 with no mention of being tortured in the 2000 application. Since leaving Jordan, the man made three requests to Jordan for consular assistance in relation to his passport and his close relatives were also living there, it said.