The High Court refused O. A. leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order requiring him to leave Ireland and remain outside the State. Mr Justice Herbert delivered judgment on 1 July 2010.
The application was received on 4 December 2008, ten days beyond the statutory 14-day limit. The Minister’s notification was dated 6 November and was expected to reach the applicant by 10 November. The court accepted that his solicitors and counsel had acted with reasonable diligence in preparing the case, and extended time so the leave application could be considered. The judge said the applicant must benefit from that diligence, despite his failure to tell his solicitors promptly that he had left his notified address.
The underlying order was made on 30 October 2008 under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The applicant said he feared being killed by members of the “Viking Cult” if returned to Nigeria and relied on evidence of serious mental illness. The judgment records that he had been diagnosed with psychotic depressive illness, had been hospitalised in 2006 and continued to receive psychiatric care. His counsel argued that his health could prevent him from obtaining police protection in Nigeria and that deportation would breach his rights under refugee and human rights law, including respect for family life.
The judge found that the material before the Minister made it rationally open to conclude that protection and mental health treatment were available in Nigeria, though conditions and treatment could be less favourable than in Ireland. The court also said the Minister had considered the applicant’s circumstances and gave the decision’s essential reasoning. On the claim about access to police protection, the judge found there was no material before the Minister showing that the applicant’s condition would prevent him seeking or obtaining it. The judgment did not determine objections about whether that issue could be raised for the first time in judicial review.
The applicant’s mother and three siblings were living in Ireland, and the judgment records his wish to live with them. The court concluded he could not advance a reasonable and weighty argument that his relationship with them amounted to “family life” under Article 8, or that his medical evidence established dependency beyond the usual emotional ties between an adult child and parent. It found no substantial grounds to argue that the Minister’s conclusion was irrational, unreasonable or disproportionate.
The court therefore refused leave to seek judicial review. It did not grant leave or quash the deportation order.