W. (Z.) v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

On the expiry of the first visa, he applied and obtained a second visa (subject to the like conditions of the first) on production of evidence of payment of his tuition or college fees. This visa was in respect of the period from the end of March 2000 to October 2000. It was during this period that certain events took place which brought him to the attention of the State authorities and ultimately lead him to this court.

The position taken by the Respondents vis-a-vis the events of late May early June 2000 is that the record made at the time records:

While considerable controversy surrounds these events in late May, early June 2000; such events put the Respondents on enquiry as to the observance of the conditions attached to the visa granted to the Applicant. The controversy surrounding such events does not affect anything between that date and October 2000 when the second visa expired. These can be stated as:-

The conclusion of events was that the Minister made a Deportation Order on 27th February 2001 and gave notice of the making thereof by letter dated 5th of March 2001:

It is very properly conceded that there is an error on the face of the record. I have no doubt that on the facts as established in the evidence and what was very frankly conceded on behalf of the Applicant that the Minister had good grounds under Section 3(2)(h) of the Act of 1999 to make a deportation order. However, the reason given is the refusal of refugee status. In this regard I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in PB&L (unreported 30th July 2001) affirming an observation made in the course of the High Court judgment in that case to the following effect: