The High Court has granted a family leave to seek judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against a father of three Irish citizen children. The decision was an initial permission stage, not a ruling on whether the refusal was unlawful or whether the deportation order should be revoked.
The case concerns a decision dated 3 September 2009 refusing an application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The judgment says the father, a Nigerian national, had a prior serious criminal conviction connected with an offence in Germany and had returned to Ireland unlawfully in 2006. The Minister relied on the conviction and breach of immigration law as substantial reasons for deportation.
The family argued that the Minister had not properly weighed the rights of the married couple and their Irish citizen children, particularly the eldest child’s welfare, education and medical needs. Their submissions referred to reports describing that child’s emotional, behavioural and learning difficulties, and to the mother’s auto-immune hepatitis. They also challenged the Minister’s assessment of conditions and services in Nigeria and the conclusion that the children could adapt to relocation.
The judge said the material before the Minister showed detailed consideration of the family’s circumstances and relevant constitutional and Convention rights, rather than merely cursory observations. The court also stressed that the children’s rights did not automatically give their non-national parents a right to reside in Ireland, and that the application was not an appeal on the merits.
However, the judge considered it arguable that the analysis had not adequately addressed whether the eldest child’s particular circumstances made the case exceptional and called for more detailed consideration of educational and development opportunities in Nigeria. The judgment also noted that the father had lived with the family for four and a half years since the children’s birth and, according to the material presented, played a central role in supporting his wife and eldest child.
The court granted leave to pursue the reliefs sought in the amended grounds and identified a possible additional declaration concerning the exceptional-case issue. It said leave should not be taken as an indication that the family would succeed at a substantive hearing; the Minister could still establish that the refusal was lawful.