The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against a Nigerian man, finding that the application had been misunderstood and the family’s changed circumstances had not been properly assessed.
The judicial review concerned a decision refusing, in March 2010, to revoke an order made in December 2002 and carried out in February 2003. The court found the Minister’s consideration did not adequately recognise that the man was seeking to lift the lifetime exclusion so he could apply for a visa to join his family in Ireland.
The man had been deported after his asylum claim was treated as withdrawn. He and his wife married in January 2003, shortly before his removal. Their son, an Irish citizen, was born in Ireland later that year. The wife also had an older Irish citizen son. She had lived in Ireland since 1999, worked full time and supported her husband in Nigeria, where she visited him regularly with the children on some trips.
The family applied for revocation in 2009, relying on the marriage, the children’s citizenship and residence, and the effect of prolonged separation. The Minister refused. The court recorded that the Minister’s assessment referred to the children’s potential Nigerian citizenship and ability to adapt, and concluded that the family could live together in Nigeria.
The Minister argued that the family had spent little time together, that the applicants had delayed seeking revocation and had not disclosed their relationship and marriage plans at the relevant time, and that the refusal was justified by the State’s interest in controlling immigration. The court acknowledged criticism of the applicants’ delay and their failure to disclose information to their legal representatives.
But the judge found the revocation application presented a substantially changed set of facts, including the settled family in Ireland and the constitutional rights of the citizen children. The assessment, the court said, largely recited the submissions without showing that those changes had been understood or fairly balanced. It also failed to consider whether the man could be allowed to return for a limited period, subject to conditions.
The applicants also relied on the 2011 Zambrano decision on EU citizenship. The court made no determination on whether that ruling applied to this case or similar applications.
The court’s order was limited to quashing the Minister’s refusal to revoke the deportation order. It did not itself revoke the underlying order or grant the man a visa or permission to return.