The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke a Nigerian woman’s deportation order, finding the decision disproportionate and unreasonable in law.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hogan on 23 March 2011, concerned an Irish man identified as Mr S. and a Nigerian woman identified as Ms E. They married in November 2009 after meeting earlier that year. The judgment records that the Minister had refused Ms E.’s asylum and subsidiary protection applications and made a deportation order. The couple later sought permission for her to remain in Ireland based on their marriage.
The court was reviewing the Minister’s decision of 20 April 2010 refusing a request to revoke that order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The decision was communicated to the applicants in July 2010, and they obtained leave to challenge it. An earlier judicial review had been dismissed because of delay and failures to provide information promptly; the judge in that case did not decide the merits. A separate challenge to the refusal of subsidiary protection was also unsuccessful.
Mr S. has medical conditions and intellectual disabilities. Psychiatric evidence obtained after proceedings began established that he had capacity to marry and understand the case, though the judge described him as vulnerable. The court made an order under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 prohibiting publication or broadcast of material that might identify him as a person with his medical condition.
In considering the challenged decision, Mr Justice Hogan said the Minister’s assessment had treated Mr S.’s ability to live independently and travel locally as support for the suggestion that he could visit Ms E. in Nigeria. The judge found that reasoning unrealistic: Mr S. depended on disability benefit, needed daily medication, and could not reasonably be expected to travel to or live in Nigeria. The Minister’s decision had not adequately considered those circumstances or the effect of the order on the couple’s ability to live together.
The court accepted that maintaining the integrity of the asylum system was an important public interest and that the timing of the marriage, when Ms E.’s immigration status was precarious, could be considered. But the judge concluded that the Minister had given disproportionate weight to that interest and failed to balance it fairly against the applicants’ constitutional rights concerning marriage and family life.
The court quashed the refusal to revoke the deportation order. The order addressed that refusal; the judgment does not itself revoke the deportation order or grant Ms E. permission to remain in Ireland.