Judgment: 2018-12-18 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to deportation proposal for child born in Ireland

The court held that the child’s application under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 was misconceived and that her representations should be considered through the section 3 deportation process.

The High Court · [2018] IEHC 780

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Richard Humphreys (Judge)
What

The court held that the child’s application under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 was misconceived and that her representations should be considered through the section 3 deportation process.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The family sought to quash a 24 September 2014 letter, which said a notification under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 would issue and invited representations on why a deportation order should not be made against the child. They also sought to quash the subsequent section 3 proposal to deport her. The judge held that the Minister was not obliged to consider a request for permission outside the section 3 process. The Minister could still grant the child permission to remain after considering representations made in that process.

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by a child born in Ireland and her parents challenging the handling of the child’s request for permission to remain in the State and a proposal to deport her.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 18 December 2018 that the child’s application under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 was misconceived. He said that section concerns immigration decisions at the point of entry and does not provide a general route for a child born in the State without a legal entitlement to remain to seek permission.

The family sought to quash a 24 September 2014 letter, which said a notification under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 would issue and invited representations on why a deportation order should not be made against the child. They also sought to quash the subsequent section 3 proposal to deport her. The judge held that the Minister was not obliged to consider a request for permission outside the section 3 process. The Minister could still grant the child permission to remain after considering representations made in that process.

The judgment records that the father had been in Ireland since 2009 and the mother since April 2012, and that neither had permission to be in the State. Their applications for ministerial permission were refused, and deportation orders were made against them in August 2014. The child was born in Ireland on 15 August 2013. Her parents later applied to revoke their deportation orders.

The judge also held that it was premature to challenge the proposal itself. The child could respond to it and, if the eventual decision was unfavourable, challenge that decision. The court said the family could leave Ireland and apply for permission from outside the State.

The respondent had undertaken not to process the proposal or deport the parents while the proceedings were pending. The court dismissed the application and released the respondents from those undertakings. The ruling did not decide the outcome of the section 3 process or whether the child would ultimately receive permission to remain.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review