The High Court dismissed a mother and daughter’s judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke their deportation orders. The court held that the child’s constitutional right to education did not give her a right to remain in Ireland, and that grounds available when the orders were made in 2009 could not be revived through a later revocation application.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 12 May 2016. The mother, identified as K.R.A., came to Ireland from Nigeria in early 2008, leaving her husband and three children there. Her daughter, identified as B.M.A., was born in Ireland in March 2008. The mother’s asylum and subsidiary protection applications were rejected. Deportation orders against both applicants were made in November 2009 and were not challenged at the time.
After going into hiding from the Garda National Immigration Bureau for almost five years, the mother applied in October 2014 for the orders to be revoked under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister refused in May 2015. The High Court had granted leave for judicial review and an injunction restraining deportation.
The applicants argued that deportation would interfere with the daughter’s right to free primary education, given the alleged inadequacy of Nigeria’s education system. The judge said that the right to education applied to every child in the State, regardless of nationality or legal status. But it did not create an entitlement to stay in Ireland to continue receiving education or other services. He found that the Minister had considered the child’s educational position and that it was reasonable to conclude, on the material available, that Nigeria had a functioning education system.
The court also held that the education argument could have been raised when the original deportation orders were made. A section 3(11) application was confined to new circumstances, and could not restart the time limit for challenging those earlier orders. The judge further ruled that the Minister was not required to decide the child’s case separately from her mother’s.
The court rejected a late objection by the Minister to the applicants’ pleadings, ruling that it should have been raised during the hearing. It also held that the statutory appeal restrictions applied to judicial review of a refusal to revoke a deportation order, so leave to appeal was required.
The court dismissed the application for certiorari. It continued the deportation injunction until the date set for any leave-to-appeal application; it would then end unless continued by a further order. The matter was adjourned to allow the applicants to consider seeking leave to appeal.