The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian woman’s judicial review challenge to a decision upholding a deportation order made against her, and released the State respondents from an undertaking not to deport her.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 12 April 2019. The case concerned the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke the order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The judge noted that the respondents did not press an objection that the proceedings may have been filed slightly out of time.
The applicant arrived in Ireland in December 2008 and applied for asylum. Her application and subsequent appeal were refused. A deportation order was made in July 2009, and she did not present for deportation as required the following month. The judgment said she was then classed as an evader. In October 2016, her solicitors applied to have the order revoked. The Minister’s decision to refuse that application was notified in October 2018, and the applicant brought the present proceedings the following month.
The applicant argued, among other grounds, that the decision was disproportionate and failed to properly consider her family life. The judge said she could not rely on the rights of family members who were not parties to the case. He also rejected the argument that the Minister had failed to consider discretion, finding that the decision recorded consideration of her personal plea for mercy. The applicant’s argument about Nigerian cultural norms could not ground judicial review because it had not been put to the Minister, the judgment said.
The judge held that the proceedings could not be used to revisit the original deportation decisions, which had not been challenged. He also said that the applicant’s family life had developed while her immigration status was precarious, unsettled or unlawful, including during a period of evasion.
Separately, the judge said he would have refused relief on discretionary grounds even if the applicant had established a legal flaw, given her conduct in frustrating enforcement of the deportation order for almost 10 years. He noted that her evasion meant she did not qualify for a process associated with the McMahon report.
The court dismissed the proceedings and released the respondents from their undertaking not to deport the applicant. The judgment did not itself make a new deportation order.