X v The Minister for Justice and Equality (Approved)

1.������ Mr X, a national of Nigeria, claims to be bisexual or homosexual (both terms have been used by his lawyers in the pleadings, though Mr X�s own claim at his s.35 interview was that he is bisexual). His claims as to his sexuality have not been believed by the Minister. Consequently he has failed to secure a refugee declaration, a subsidiary protection declaration or permission to remain in the State and, latterly, has had a deportation order issue against him.

2.������ On 22nd May 2017, a permission to remain decision issued to Mr X along with a s.39 report dated 15th May 2017. That s.39 report referred to the wrong person in the recommendation section. On 30th May 2017, a s.39 report issued which now referred in Section 10 to Mr X. The brief cover letter which accompanied the report of 30th May 2017 states, inter alia, as follows:

��������� �I refer to our recent letter to you dated 22nd May 2017 in relation to the recommendation made in respect of your application for international protection. I wish to advise you that [the] s.39 report that issued to you with the letter on 22nd May 2017, contained an error in section 10 of that report. I wish to apologise for this error and am now enclosing a copy of the s.39 report containing the correct details. Please also find attached a new recommendation letter which, you will note, has been dated 30th May 2017�

3.������ There is dispute between the parties as to whether the s.39 report should be treated as having issued on 22nd May 2017 or 30th May 2017. Regardless of where the truth of this lies, to the extent that Mr X now seeks to bring a challenge by reference to the just-described events of May 2017, the court must respectfully decline to extend the time for the bringing of that claim for the reasons set out below.

(i) ���� is the High Court satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the impugned act/ion is invalid or ought to be quashed?