The High Court has restrained the Minister for Justice from deporting Nigerian national Bobbi Ezeike while her challenge to the refusal of subsidiary protection is determined.
Mr Justice Cooke granted an interlocutory injunction pending the hearing of her substantive judicial review application, listed for 15 June 2010, and thereafter until the proceeding is finally determined. The court reserved the costs of the injunction application.
The challenge concerns the Minister’s decision of 30 November 2009 to refuse Ezeike’s application for subsidiary protection. The court had granted her leave to seek judicial review of that refusal on 15 February 2010. The injunction hearing was not the substantive hearing, and the court made no finding that Ezeike qualified for subsidiary protection.
Ezeike arrived in Ireland in May 2007 and applied for asylum. Her application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in August 2007, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision in June 2009. The Minister notified her in July 2009 of a proposal to deport her. After she applied for subsidiary protection, a deportation order was made on 8 December 2009 under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.
Ezeike married Irish citizen Patsy Sharkey on 20 November 2009. The Minister later refused a request to revoke the deportation order and representations seeking permission for her to remain on humanitarian grounds.
In a separate proceeding, Hanna J refused leave to challenge the deportation order but granted an injunction on an ad misericordiam basis, restraining deportation until 16 April 2010. Cooke J said a valid deportation order remained in force and Ezeike’s marriage did not change her unlawful immigration status. He also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Cosma v MJELR, which had refused an injunction in analogous circumstances.
In weighing the application, Cooke J said the short period before the June hearing, the potential disruption to the couple’s married life, and the value of having Ezeike present to assist her lawyers supported maintaining the existing position. The Minister’s counsel had alleged that the applicant and her husband were “drip feeding” information, but the judge said no compelling reason had been given to deport Ezeike immediately on the basis that she might abscond or pose a risk to the immigration system.
The order postpones implementation of the deportation order while the judicial review is pending. It does not quash that order or decide the underlying protection claim.