The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application challenging a deportation order, finding that the Minister for Justice and Equality had considered the applicant’s family circumstances and that the constitutional-rights arguments relied on in court had not been put to the Minister before the decision.
The applicant, Zain Jahangir, arrived in Ireland from the UK in 2011 and was found working illegally in 2015, according to the judgment. He applied for permission to remain in October 2015. Those representations described him as single, did not mention a relationship and said he had lived in Limerick since 2011.
After receiving notice of an intention to deport him in September 2016, submissions on his behalf said he had been in a relationship for 18 months with Irish citizen Marie Duff, who has two children. The judge said the submissions provided only limited information: they did not say the couple lived together, include a submission from Duff or provide documentary proof of cohabitation. They also referred to a stillborn child but included no registration of the stillbirth.
The Minister made a deportation order on 6 July 2017. The analysis considered the applicant’s family and domestic circumstances under the Immigration Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and concluded that the material submitted did not establish a durable relationship akin to marriage.
The applicant sought certiorari, asking the court to quash the order. His case alleged that the Minister had failed to consider constitutional rights engaged by the deportation. The judge said the constitutional point made to the Minister concerned the lifelong duration of the exclusion order, which the Minister addressed. The broader rights arguments advanced in the judicial review had not been raised beforehand and could not be used to challenge the decision.
The judge also found that the absence of a detailed narrative discussion did not establish that the Minister had failed to consider the issue. The Minister’s analysis said all submissions had been considered, and the court found no proof otherwise. The applicant’s affidavit included further detail about his relationship and its connection with the children, but that information had not been given to the Minister before the decision.
The court said that, although it might be best practice for the Minister to consider constitutional rights expressly, departure from that practice did not by itself justify quashing an order. It concluded that the substance of the applicant’s family-life rights had been considered under Article 8 and dismissed the application. The judgment concerned the judicial review challenge; the court did not quash the deportation order.