The High Court has refused an applicant’s request to temporarily restrain the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from carrying out a deportation order while his judicial review case proceeds.
In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2007, Mr Justice Hedigan said the applicant was challenging the Minister’s decision that he did not have EU Treaty rights to remain in Ireland. The court’s decision concerned only the requested interlocutory injunction; it did not determine the outcome of the judicial review.
The judge weighed the applicant’s submissions that deportation would cause irreparable family harm and financial loss against the existence of a deportation order made in 2005. The order had not itself been challenged, the judgment said. The applicant’s latest application, based on his spouse’s EU Treaty rights, had failed and was also unchallenged.
There was a dispute over whether the applicant had presented himself in September 2005. He said he had; an affidavit filed for the respondents denied it. The judge said he did not have enough information to decide that issue.
The judgment also noted that asylum appeal bodies had found the applicant’s account seriously lacking in credibility. The judge referred to authority indicating that an injunction should not normally prevent implementation of a valid deportation order, and said no previously unknown fact had been brought to the court’s attention.
On the claimed separation from his wife, the judge said her having to follow the applicant to Nigeria might cause considerable inconvenience, but there was nothing preventing her from doing so. The judgment also recorded the respondent’s counsel’s submission that travel expenses could be paid if the applicant ultimately won his case.
The judge gave weight to the public interest in supporting the immigration system. He also addressed the applicant’s conduct: the judgment said he had not left the State after the deportation order and had married during that period. It further said he had marked “No” when asked whether any deportation order was outstanding on a residence-card application. The judge considered that, absent a clear explanation, this appeared intended to mislead the State.
The court refused the injunction. The judge declined to require undertakings from the respondents, while noting counsel’s statement about transfer costs if the applicant won. He said that if the applicant were ultimately found to have EU Treaty rights to reside in Ireland, there would be no question of him being allowed to reside there.