The Supreme Court has refused an appeal by E.M. against a Ministerial decision to deport him, finding that a reference to his lack of permission to work did not undermine the consideration of his employment prospects. The Court also held that his conduct did not warrant refusing relief on discretionary grounds, even if the deportation decision had otherwise been liable to be quashed.
E.M. arrived in Ireland from Pakistan in 2011 and applied for asylum. After that application was refused and an appeal was deemed abandoned, he married a Latvian citizen resident in Ireland. He received residence permission as her spouse, but the Minister later found the marriage was one of convenience, revoked that permission and proposed deportation. That finding was not challenged in these proceedings.
In submissions opposing deportation, E.M. said he had worked in retail and run businesses employing several people. His submissions said deportation could cause his takeaway business to fail and cost the State revenue and jobs. The Minister’s file recorded that he was working in the business, but also stated that he lacked permission to reside or work in Ireland and that the Minister was not obliged to grant permission to facilitate his employment. The Minister made a deportation order in September 2020, concluding that the public interest and common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems outweighed the features supporting leave to remain.
The High Court dismissed E.M.’s judicial review challenge. It held that the reference to his lack of permission was a statement of fact and did not negatively assess his employment prospects. It also found that his conduct would disentitle him to relief if the deportation decision were otherwise unlawful. The Supreme Court considered both issues on appeal.
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said the Minister must consider the statutory factors as part of an overall assessment, but need not give a separate conclusion under each heading. The Minister had recorded that E.M. was running his takeaway business, and the additional reference to his lack of permission did not set his employment prospects at nought. The Court said linking permission status to employment prospects can create confusion and would be better addressed elsewhere in the file. In this case, however, it was not an error that invalidated the deportation decision.
On the separate question of conduct, the Court noted the unchallenged marriage-of-convenience finding, contradictory information about residence with the Latvian citizen, and inconsistent positions concerning refoulement, alongside E.M.’s return to Pakistan. It said courts must use the power to refuse relief for abuse sparingly and cautiously, considering the circumstances and humanitarian concerns. The Court was not satisfied that his conduct justified refusing relief if it were otherwise due. As it found no basis to quash the Minister’s decision, it refused the appeal.