The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by two families challenging deportation orders made after their asylum applications were to be transferred to the United Kingdom for examination. In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2003, Mr Justice Hardiman said the presence of an Irish-born child did not, by itself, prevent the deportation of non-citizen parents or siblings.
The families had first sought asylum in the United Kingdom, where their applications were refused, and later lodged applications in Ireland. The Lobe family’s earlier UK applications were disclosed; in the Osayande case, that history was concealed. The United Kingdom agreed to accept the transfers. The mothers were pregnant when they arrived in Ireland in early 2001 and gave birth there later that year.
The Minister made deportation orders under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, which allows an order for a person whose asylum application has been transferred to a convention country. The families sought judicial review to quash the orders. They argued that the Irish-born children’s citizenship and constitutional rights to family life meant their relatives could be deported only for exceptional, serious reasons personal to them.
The Court rejected that argument. It held that an Irish-born child is an Irish citizen and cannot be deported under the orders in these cases, but that citizenship does not automatically give the child’s non-citizen family members a right to remain. The Minister had to consider the child’s constitutional rights and the family’s circumstances, while also weighing the common good. The Court said that could include the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems and Ireland’s obligations under the Dublin Convention.
Hardiman J distinguished the appeals from the earlier Fajujonu case, which concerned a family that had lived in Ireland for eight years and a parent whose poverty followed the State’s refusal of a work permit. He said those circumstances were material to that decision; the families before the Court had been in Ireland for much shorter periods.
The Court found that the Minister’s memoranda considered the children’s rights and set out reasons for the orders, including the families’ short residence, the Dublin Convention and the need to preserve the asylum and immigration systems. The appeals were dismissed because the applicants had not shown that the decisions were unlawful or irrational under the applicable judicial-review standard. The Court did not decide the underlying asylum claims or make an order deporting the Irish-born children.