The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision under which the State had in 2016 deported to Jordan a man allegedly involved with Islamic terrorists.
The State claimed the man is the "foremost organiser and facilitator of travel by extremists prepared to undertake violent action" on behalf of Islamic terrorists and was its "main recruiter" in Ireland.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, denied consulting with extremist leaders outside Ireland or that he represented a threat to national security or was recruiting members for Islamic extremist groups.
In the High Court in 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the man's actions aimed at preventing his deportation and the man was deported shortly afterwards.
His lawyers pursued his appeal against the High Court finding that he had not made a valid asylum claim.
The man claimed he was tortured in Jordan during the 1990s due to his political activities and feared being tortured if returned there.
He lived in Ireland between 2000 and 2016, on the basis of having an Irish citizen child.
In 2015 the authorities decided not to renew his residency permit because the child wasn’t residing in the State.
After being told the State wanted to deport him, the man sought asylum and alleged the Minister for Justice unlawfully refused to make a decision on his application.
The decision to deport him breached his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, he claimed.
He sought various orders aimed at setting aside the deportation order and compelling the Minister for Justice to accept his asylum application.
In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Court of Appeal, comprising Mr Justice Michael Peart, Ms Justice Mary Irvine and Mr Justice Gerald Hogan dismissed the appeal after finding the man had not made a valid application for asylum.
Giving the court’s judgment, Mr Justice Hogan held the appeal could not be brought under the 2000 Illegal Immigrants Act.
This was because the man had in 2000 withdrawn his application for asylum in Ireland with the effect his application had not been refused by the Minister.
The appeal amounted to “a collateral attack” on an administrative decision by the Minister which could only be challenged by way of judicial review proceedings brought under the 2000 Act, he said.
The man could not contend he had made a valid asylum claim in the absence of a direct challenge brought, under the 2000 Act, against the Minister’s decision of June 2015 refusing his re-entry into the asylum system, he held.
In all the circumstances, the appeal court was satisfied to affirm the decision of the High Court.