The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal against an order quashing a refusal to renew Daniybe Luximon’s permission to remain in Ireland. It sent her application back to the Minister for further consideration and a new decision.
The court held that when deciding an application under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004, the Minister had to consider Article 8 rights that had been raised. It did not decide that those rights were engaged on the family’s particular circumstances. That assessment was for the Minister, subject to judicial review.
Ms Luximon, a Mauritian citizen, came to Ireland in 2006 to study. Her daughter, also a Mauritian citizen, joined her that year. The daughter was a minor and in her first year of secondary school when the proceedings began in 2013. Ms Luximon’s permission under student conditions expired on 26 June 2012. Her employer’s application for a Green Card Employment Permit had been unsuccessful.
In October 2012, Ms Luximon’s solicitors sought renewal of her permission and a change from Stamp 2 to Stamp 4 conditions. They relied on the family’s private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, describing the family’s residence, community ties and the daughter’s schooling. The Minister refused the application on 5 November 2012, granting an extension only to 19 December so Ms Luximon could finalise her affairs. The letter said she must leave unless she obtained another form of immigration permission and warned that deportation proceedings might be initiated. It did not address Article 8 or her daughter’s position.
The High Court granted certiorari, quashing the refusal. The Court of Appeal agreed that refusing renewal could potentially interfere with the family’s private or family life, particularly where the applicants had lived in Ireland lawfully for several years. Under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, the Minister had to exercise the statutory discretion consistently with the State’s Convention obligations. The Minister accepted that relevant rights would be considered before a deportation order, but the Court of Appeal held that consideration could not be deferred from the renewal decision in these circumstances.
The court did not rule on the scope of any constitutional rights the applicants might have. It also rejected the High Court’s separate conclusion that the Minister had breached fair procedures by failing to publish criteria for applications by “timed-out” non-EEA students seeking Stamp 4 conditions. The court said the statutory power was discretionary and required consideration of each applicant’s individual circumstances; timed-out students had no automatic right to Stamp 4 status.
The appeal was dismissed. The certiorari order was upheld, and the application was remitted to the Minister for further consideration and decision.