The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a deportation order concerning a Nigerian woman who lived with an Irish family and helped care for two Irish citizen children.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 9 October 2008, concerned a Ministerial decision made on 20 September 2007. The applicants sought to have that decision quashed, a declaration that it was unlawful and an injunction against the woman’s removal. The court refused the relief sought.
The two children, a brother and sister born in Ireland, were aged seven and eight at the time of the judgment. The woman was living with their family and was described as playing a role in their upbringing comparable to that of a nanny. The first child had Down syndrome, congenital heart disease and a history of leukaemia treatment. The judgment records that the children’s mother was lawfully resident in Ireland and that the children would remain in the State with her if the woman were deported.
The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider the children’s constitutional and Article 8 rights, had not properly balanced those rights against the State’s immigration interests, and had breached fair procedures. They relied in part on authorities addressing deportation of a citizen child’s parent.
The judge distinguished those cases. He held that the principles in Oguekwe did not require the same decision-making approach here because the woman was the children’s mother’s cousin, not a parent, and her deportation would not separate the children from their mother or require them to leave Ireland. The court said the Minister’s officials had considered the woman’s relationship with the children in the section 3 analysis; no express statement that the children’s best interests or rights had been considered was required.
The judge also found that no evidence showed the woman’s removal would interfere with the children’s development, mental health or stability so as to engage their Article 8 right to private life. He noted that their mother had cared for them before the woman arrived and that the four adult half-siblings living with the family could assist. The judgment records that the applicants had not been granted leave to pursue their separate fair-procedures complaint about alleged presumptions and inaccuracies in the analysis; that argument also failed.
On proportionality, the court concluded that the applicants’ arguments failed in light of earlier decisions concerning the Minister’s obligations in deportation cases and the less severe consequences in this case than deporting a citizen child’s parent. The judicial review challenge was dismissed and the requested relief refused. The judgment does not state that the deportation order was carried out.