CC v Minister for Justice  CC v Minister for Justice [2016] 2 IR 680; [https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S48.html [2016] IESC 48] (also referred to as "Charles v Minister for Justice") is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed an appeal by the State to issue a deportation order against a Malawian family who were seeking asylum in Ireland. In this case, the Court had to reexamine a previously established test with respect to whether an order for deportation could be granted where an appeal was pending within the courts system. Ultimately, the Court decided that there was no need for refinements as the general principle identified in that test can be applied across a wide number of cases. The applicant in this case, Charles (CC), his wife and their two children, had their application for refugee status denied in 2008. As a result, he filled an application for subsidiary protection and leave to remain in Ireland without challenging the initial denial of refugee status. In 2011, the Minister for Justice and Equality rejected the family's request for subsidiary protection and request for leave to remain in Ireland. This resulted in an order of deportation of the family under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. On appeal of the decision for deportation, the High Court refused the family's judicial review of the decision and the family then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in 2012. The High Court justified their decision for deportation by claiming that it had partook in a "lengthy correspondence" with the family's solicitors and that the family had failed to show up in court for a number of sittings. They also moved address to avoid their pending deportation. Cooke J based his denial on the fact that the family had gone "off the radar" as far as the Court was concerned throughout the duration of the asylum application. Written judgments were provided by Clarke J and MacMenamin J, with whom the other judges concurred (in full or part). The Supreme Court found that the current legislation in place often resulted in a confusing system for those seeking asylum in Ireland and also for those seeking subsidiary protection. The Court felt that the current system in place did not serve its intended purpose and caused hardship on both the State and those seeking relief from it. In addition, counsel for the State had not established any persuasive arguments to revise the "Okunade" test. The issue before this Court was that if the "Okunade" test can be applied "in the context of a situation which arises pending an appeal after an adverse leave judgement upholding a decision to refuse subsidiary protection."