The High Court quashed decisions refusing residency applications by the parents of an Irish-born boy and decisions affirming deportation orders against them. It also remitted the residency applications for reconsideration in accordance with law.
In a supplementary judgment delivered on 14 November 2006, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that the decisions failed to give due consideration to the boy’s constitutional rights and welfare, and that the Minister had not considered relevant matters, including the IBC/05 Scheme. She also held that the deportation decisions breached the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 in respect of the boy’s private life.
The boy, George Dimbo, was born in Ireland in 1996 and is an Irish citizen. His parents, Nigerian nationals, had applied for permission to remain under the IBC/05 Scheme. Those applications were refused on 16 August 2005 because they had not established continuous residence in Ireland since his birth.
The court said the boy had not lived continuously in Ireland. By August 2005, he had spent about three and a half years in the State and had most recently returned in February that year. He had attended a school in County Meath during earlier and later periods in Ireland. The judge found that he had re-established a private life in the State, including through active participation in school and related activities.
The parents also challenged decisions communicated in letters dated 1 February 2006 affirming deportation orders made in June 2004. The judge found that the officials’ consideration did not address the circumstances of a nine-year-old Irish citizen who had a right to live in Ireland and did not wish to leave. The files contained only a standard statement that the child could not be deported and was presumed to leave with his parent to preserve family unity.
The judge also found that the decision makers had failed to consider the relevance of the IBC/05 Scheme, which applied to the parents and represented a change in the approach to non-national parents of citizen children. The court said that deportation would interfere with the boy’s private life if he had to leave Ireland to remain with his parents, and that the required Article 8 questions had not been addressed.
The Minister’s counsel argued that relief should be refused because the mother had made untrue statements about her residence, particularly in an affidavit. The judge described false affidavits as a potentially exceptional reason to refuse judicial review relief, but exercised her discretion to grant relief, taking account of the apology and the boy’s rights. The court did not determine whether either parent would necessarily breach Article 8 if deported; it quashed the challenged decisions and remitted the residency applications.