The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a Brazilian family against deportation orders made by the Minister for Justice and Equality, leaving in place the High Court’s refusal to quash the orders. The appeal was pursued in substance on behalf of the five children, who remained in Ireland with their father; their mother had returned to Brazil because of her father’s illness.
The family’s judicial review challenged deportation orders made on 12 March 2012. The High Court dismissed the challenge, and the appeal court upheld that decision. The court’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 30 July 2015, addressed the children’s constitutional rights, the Minister’s duties under immigration law and the assessment of their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court held that the children, as non-citizens, did not have a personal right under Article 40.3 of the Constitution to remain in Ireland or participate in community life there. It distinguished their position from that of citizen children, whose citizenship can ground a constitutional right to live in the State.
The appellants argued that the Immigration Act required the Minister to treat the best interests of each child as a primary consideration, relying on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court said the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law. The Act required the Minister to consider matters including age, time in the State, family circumstances, connection with Ireland and humanitarian considerations, some of which relate to a child’s welfare. But the court held that the provision could not be interpreted as requiring the child’s best interests to be a primary consideration or requiring an express decision on whether deportation was consistent with those interests.
On Article 8, the officials’ examination of the mother’s and children’s case had recognised that deportation could interfere with private life through education, social ties and personal development. It recorded that the children attended schools in Ireland and that their solicitors said they had settled in, made friends and considered Ireland their home. The official nevertheless concluded that the potential interference would not have consequences grave enough to engage Article 8. The appeal court held that the trial judge was correct to uphold that approach and to find the conclusion reasonable on the material before the Minister.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal. It did not make a new deportation decision; it upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the application to quash the Minister’s existing orders.