The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a deportation order against a Nigerian man, finding that the applicants had not established any of their grounds of challenge. The court also ordered the respondent’s costs against the first applicant.
In a judgment delivered on 22 November 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns considered a 2016 order made by the Minister for Justice. The man had sought to remain in Ireland after the breakdown of his relationship with the mother of three children, who were described in the judgment as Nigerian citizens lawfully resident in the State. He and the children had been made joint guardians by consent in the District Court in January 2015.
The judicial review had been granted leave in July 2016. The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider constitutional rights, had given an uncertain assessment of rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had applied the wrong test, failed to give reasons and mishandled the man’s employment prospects.
The judge said the court would consider the man to be the father of the two younger children for the purpose of the case, as the Minister had assessed the deportation decision on that basis. The court did not make a factual determination of parentage. It noted that the District Court guardianship order had been made by consent and did not establish parentage through a fact-finding process.
The judgment held that children have constitutional rights to the care and company of their parent, and that a parent has a corresponding right to the company of their children. But the court said the evidence before the Minister did not establish a meaningful, active relationship between the man and the children. On that record, the applicants had not shown that deportation would breach the asserted rights or that the children’s best interests required him to remain.
The judge rejected the argument that the Minister’s Article 8 analysis was uncertain, describing it as detailed and comprehensive. She also found that the Minister’s assessment of the man’s employment prospects was open to her, taking account of the employment situation at the time and the nature of the work for which he was qualified.
The court further rejected challenges concerning the case law and the “insurmountable obstacles” test used in the Minister’s assessment, and found that the reasons given on humanitarian considerations were clear. It said the deportation order did not make the District Court guardianship order null and void.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not state that it quashed or otherwise altered the deportation order.