The High Court refused a judicial review challenge by an Irish citizen, her infant son and her Nigerian husband to the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke the husband’s deportation order.
The husband, identified in the judgment as H.U., had applied for asylum after arriving in Ireland in 2008. His claim was refused, and a deportation order was made in December that year. He married the second applicant, an Irish citizen identified as S.W.U., in October 2008. Their son, identified as D.U., was born in Ireland in May 2009 and is an Irish citizen.
The Minister refused an initial request to revoke the order in 2009. In January 2010, the family made a second application, relying on the marriage, their son’s birth and the family’s rights. The Minister accepted an official recommendation to reaffirm the order, and notified the applicants of that decision on 27 January 2010. The family challenged that second refusal. The court had granted an interlocutory injunction in March 2010 restraining deportation until the proceedings were determined.
The applicants argued that the Minister had not properly assessed the effect of deportation on family life, had given insufficient consideration to the wife’s constitutional rights, and had acted unfairly by relying on immigration control. They said the Minister assumed that the wife and child would move to Nigeria, although the wife preferred to remain in Ireland. The Minister’s position was that the family had not provided information showing why it would be unreasonable for them to live in Nigeria.
Justice M. Clark held that the Minister’s assessment was rational and comprehensive on the information provided. The application had included little about the wife’s personal circumstances or any obstacles she and the child might face in Nigeria. The court said the Minister was not required to speculate where the applicants had not supplied relevant information. It also found that the constitutional and Convention rights relied on were not absolute and did not give the family an automatic right to live together in Ireland.
The court rejected the procedural fairness argument, finding that the husband had been given an opportunity to make representations before the deportation order was made but did not do so within the time allowed. The Minister was entitled to consider a later request based on the marriage through a revocation application and to weigh the family’s circumstances against immigration control.
The judicial review application was refused. The court did not quash the Minister’s refusal to revoke the deportation order. It also took no account of supplementary affidavits filed during the proceedings because the additional information had not been before the Minister when the revocation application was considered.