The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by the Lobe and Osayande families against decisions to deport non-national parents, ruling that the Irish citizenship of a child born in Ireland does not give the child’s parents an automatic right to remain in the State.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2003, Murray J said the Minister must take account of the constitutional rights of an infant citizen and the circumstances affecting the family. But those rights are qualified: for good and sufficient reason connected with the common good, the Minister may deport non-national parents even if their Irish-born child would leave with them. The decision must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.
Both families had arrived in Ireland in 2001 and sought asylum after previously applying in the United Kingdom. The Refugee Applications Commissioner determined that their applications should be examined in the UK under the Dublin Convention. Appeals against those decisions were refused. Deportation orders followed, and the Minister agreed not to enforce them while court proceedings were pending.
The Lobe family’s youngest child, Kevin, was born in Ireland in November 2001. The Osayande family’s son, Osaze, was born in October 2001. After the births, the Minister invited further representations and confirmed the deportation decisions, relying on memorandums prepared by an immigration official. Those memorandums referred to the families’ short time in Ireland, the Dublin Convention, and the need to protect the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems.
The families argued that the earlier Supreme Court decision in *Fajujonu* required exceptional circumstances before parents of Irish-born children could be deported, and that routine immigration grounds were insufficient. The Court rejected that interpretation. Murray J said *Fajujonu* arose from a family that had lived in Ireland for about eight years and made its home there; the assessment in each case must reflect its particular facts. Immigration and asylum-system considerations may be relevant to the common good.
Murray J found that the Minister’s memorandums addressed the relevant constitutional considerations and that the families had been in Ireland for a relatively short period. He considered it reasonable for the Minister to weigh the Dublin Convention and the possible effect of refusing deportation decisions on the functioning of immigration and asylum systems. No circumstances had been shown that made the decisions disproportionate.
The Court held that the Minister’s decisions had not been shown to be unlawful or unconstitutional and dismissed the appeals. The judgment records that no decision appeared to have been made concerning deportation of Mrs Osayande or her daughter, but says nothing turned on that point. It does not state that the orders were enforced.