The High Court has upheld a decision refusing to revoke a deportation order against an Indian man whose infant son was born in Ireland the day before the order was made.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter rejected the challenge brought by J. and his son, L.E.C., to the Minister for Justice’s February 2025 decision.
J. arrived in Ireland on a student visa in July 2014. His final student permission expired in May 2016. He later applied for international protection, but that application and a subsequent permission-to-remain process were unsuccessful. A deportation order was made on 24 July 2024.
His son had been born the previous day. J. later sought revocation of the deportation order, relying on his relationship with the child and the child’s mother, an asserted Irish citizen.
The application included handwritten letters, photographs taken around the birth and statements that J. visited his son daily and helped care for him. The Minister accepted that some family life existed and that the child’s best interests were a primary consideration.
However, the decision-maker found there was limited objective evidence showing the nature, quality and durability of the relationships. The High Court held that this approach was lawful. Mr Justice Ferriter said the Minister was entitled to require detailed evidence when constitutional and European Convention family rights were relied upon to resist deportation.
The judge distinguished the case from previous litigation where extensive evidence showed close and longstanding family bonds. He also noted J.’s immigration history, including periods without lawful status, the precarious nature of his residence while seeking international protection, and his failure to report to immigration authorities when directed.
The court found that the Minister had lawfully balanced the child’s rights and best interests against the State’s interest in controlling immigration.
Mr Justice Ferriter criticised references in the decision to preventing crime and the economic well-being of the State as appearing potentially templated, but found they were not material to the outcome. The judicial review application was therefore refused.