The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a deportation order, finding that the Minister for Justice and Equality’s consideration of the applicant’s employment history and prospects was not irrational, unreasonable or unlawful.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as BMAM, sought an order quashing the deportation decision issued on 29 October 2019. He argued that the Minister had not adequately considered his work record and future employment prospects. The case was decided by Ms Justice Tara Burns in a judgment delivered on 11 December 2020.
The judgment says the applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Ireland in February 2014 and held student permission until 28 February 2018. His application to renew that permission was refused because he had worked more hours than permitted. After a deportation proposal, he made representations under the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister later issued the deportation order.
In those representations, the applicant said he had worked for a security company since February 2017 and submitted P60s, bank statements and payslips. He was in the final year of a Business Studies degree and had completed other courses. He described software testing as a future employment prospect, while also referring to possible further study or work in Ireland or abroad.
The Minister’s assessment noted that the applicant had provided no software-testing qualifications and was studying Business Studies. It also recorded that his work in Ireland was with a security company and that he did not then have permission to reside or work in the State.
Justice Burns said the Minister had taken account of the representations. The applicant’s submitted history did not show work in software testing, and the representations had not included information about qualifications he later said he had obtained in his home country. The court held that the Minister was entitled to conclude that a software-testing career had not been made out on the information provided.
The judge said the relevant submission concerned prospects in software testing, not the applicant’s general ability to work hard or avoid becoming a financial burden on the State. The judgment also distinguished earlier cases cited by the applicant, which involved different factual or legal issues.
The court refused the relief sought and made an order for costs in favour of the respondent against the applicant. The judgment does not itself set out any further action concerning the deportation order.