The High Court dismissed a Brazilian family’s judicial review challenge to deportation orders made against them, finding no demonstrated illegality in the Minister’s consideration of their circumstances and Article 8 rights.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 12 January 2018. The applicants were two parents and their three children, including one child born in Ireland. They challenged deportation orders made on 9 August 2017 after their requests to regularise their immigration status were unsuccessful.
The father had arrived in Ireland as a visitor, with permission expiring in October 2010. The mother and two older children arrived in 2011, and their visitor permissions expired that August. The judgment said they had remained in the State without permission. The youngest child was born in Ireland in April 2013. In representations opposing deportation, the family referred to the children’s close relationships with their maternal grandparents and uncles, who were lawfully resident in Ireland.
The court rejected an argument based on the McMahon report, which concerns improvements to the protection process. The judge said the applicants had never submitted that the report should apply to them. He also found they were not protection applicants and that the report did not provide them with a basis for the claimed discretion.
On Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court considered whether the Minister had adequately addressed family life, including the children’s relationships with relatives outside their immediate family. The judge said the Minister had acknowledged that the grandparents and uncles lived in Ireland and had considered the family’s submissions. The decision also weighed the State’s legitimate aim of controlling its borders against the family’s circumstances. It found the family’s difficulties did not amount to exceptional circumstances creating insurmountable obstacles to returning together to Brazil.
The judge concluded that the Minister’s assessment was within the discretion available and that the applicants had not demonstrated illegality. The court dismissed the judicial review application. The judgment does not set out any separate order beyond dismissal.