The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a deportation order against a Nigerian woman who had lived in Ireland for eight years, finding that the Minister for Justice and Equality had lawfully assessed her private life rights.
In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant’s presence in Ireland was lawful for five years while she held student permission. After it expired on 2 December 2013, she remained in the State and applied for Stamp 4 permission in January 2014. That application was refused in October 2014. The Minister granted a temporary extension of her student permission until 3 December 2014 to allow her to finalise her affairs before leaving.
The judgment says she worked unlawfully in the State after her student permission expired. She was notified in February 2015 of the Minister’s intention to make a deportation order. After representations were unsuccessful, an order was made on 15 August 2016.
She began proceedings challenging the order in October 2016. The application for leave was adjourned, and she left Ireland in November 2016. Leave to bring the judicial review was granted in January 2017.
For the applicant, counsel argued that exceptional circumstances included her status as a widow, her five years of lawful residence and eight years in Ireland overall. He also cited her age of 62, the disruption of moving at that stage of life, approaching retirement and the possibility of health issues with age.
The judge held that these circumstances did not amount to an exception. He said the applicant’s presence was not settled and that it was lawfully open to the Minister to conclude that deportation did not engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The judgment relied on the Supreme Court decision in P.O. v. Minister for Justice and Equality, which had been cited in the reasoning supporting the deportation order.
The court dismissed the proceedings. The judgment does not state that it made a new deportation order; it decided the challenge to the existing order.