The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a Nigerian man, his wife and their three children against a High Court refusal to let them seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision not to revoke the man’s deportation order. The court affirmed the High Court order; it did not decide a judicial review of the Minister’s decision itself.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 16 April 2021, concerned a deportation order made against the father in 2005 after his asylum application was refused. He was deported in 2007. He said he returned to Ireland illegally in 2008 and remained here without permission, but the Minister found that he had not provided documents establishing his continuous presence. The court held that this finding was open to the decision-maker on the material provided.
The father applied in November 2014 to have the order revoked. His wife’s deportation order had been revoked earlier that year, and she and their two Nigerian-national sons had permission to remain. Their third child held Latvian citizenship. The father said he had supported and cared for the children, including the third child, whom he treated as his own. The Minister considered the family’s circumstances and the children’s interests, but found that the State’s interests in immigration control and economic well-being outweighed the family’s interests. The decision also relied on the father’s unlawful return and employment without permission.
The appellants argued that the Minister had not properly weighed the children’s best interests or the effect on family life, and had treated the father differently from the mother without adequate justification. They also argued that deporting the father could impair the Latvian child’s EU rights.
The Court of Appeal said the Minister had considered the children’s interests, the father’s role in their lives and the fact that the mother and two sons had permission to remain. It found no substantial grounds to argue that the balancing exercise was unlawful. It also rejected the discrimination ground, pointing to differences in the parents’ legal and factual circumstances, including that the father had been deported and returned without permission.
On the EU-rights argument, the court noted that the child’s Latvian citizenship had been recognised for the decision, but found that the Minister had not been told that the child would in fact have to leave the EU if the father were deported. The court therefore found no substantial grounds on that issue either.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The Minister was proposed to receive her costs, subject to either party notifying the Court of Appeal Office within 21 days if they sought a different costs order.