The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order against a Nigerian father, finding that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds to challenge it at this stage.
In a judgment delivered on 22 February 2011, Mr Justice Hogan considered the validity of the order made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 1 April 2010. The application was at the leave stage under section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000; the court did not conduct a full judicial review.
The father arrived in Ireland in December 2008. His asylum application was refused that month, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision in February 2009. His application for subsidiary protection was refused in March 2010. The judgment says he had come to Ireland to join his wife and children, and records the judge’s view that he had abused the asylum system.
The father’s wife and their children had permission to remain in the State under the Irish Born Child Scheme 05. Their youngest child, identified in the judgment as S., was an Irish citizen and had lived in Ireland throughout her life. The judge noted evidence that the father regularly took the children to school and helped with their homework. He also considered the likely effect of deportation: the wife had said she would remain in Ireland with the children, meaning S. could have little or no direct contact with her father.
The Minister’s examination of the file addressed the child’s rights and the State’s interest in immigration control, including the integrity of the asylum system. The Minister concluded that deportation was required for a substantial reason associated with the common good. The judge noted differences from earlier cases, including the family’s longer time in Ireland and the child’s school age, but said recent High Court decisions on similar circumstances pointed against granting leave.
Justice Hogan concluded that the Minister had considered the relevant circumstances, identified a substantial reason for deportation and had not acted disproportionately, applying the authorities he considered himself bound to follow. The court therefore refused leave to apply for judicial review. The ruling did not itself determine a full judicial review of the deportation order.