The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by S.M.A., a man named in the proceedings as being from Nigeria, who sought to prevent his deportation while the Minister for Justice considered his application to revoke a deportation order and his attempts to seek permission to remain based on parentage of Irish citizen children.
In a judgment delivered on 11 February 2020, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant had not shown an entitlement to the final injunctions he sought. The court had previously granted an interim injunction against removal, but that protection lapsed after the applicant failed to make a formal application by a court-imposed deadline. The deportation order, made on 30 August 2019, was not challenged in these proceedings.
The applicant’s asylum claim had been rejected in 2009, and his subsidiary protection application was refused in 2015 after he failed to attend an interview. He was arrested on 2 January 2020 and detained at Cloverhill Prison. In January 2020, he applied to revoke the deportation order and separately sought permission to remain under the EU-law principle known as Zambrano, relying on his claimed parentage of Irish citizen children. His revocation request remained undecided at the time of judgment. Three attempted Zambrano applications had been refused as inadmissible because required documents were missing; the latest was rejected after documentation showing the child’s Irish citizenship had not been supplied.
The judge rejected the argument that the applicant had not previously had an opportunity to provide information about the children. He also said the short time since the revocation request was made did not create an enforceable right to an early decision. A revocation request under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 did not itself suspend deportation, and the court found no sufficient likelihood of success on that application to justify an injunction.
The judge also concluded that the evidence did not show that either child would be compelled to leave the European Union if the applicant were removed. He said the necessary supporting documents had not been provided and that at least some of the requested material appeared to be within the applicant’s control. The court therefore found no demonstrated likelihood of success on the Zambrano-related claim.
The court dismissed the proceedings. It did not determine the pending revocation request or make a decision on the admissibility of any future application. The judgment noted that the deportation order remained in place and that the Minister had not yet decided the revocation request.