The High Court has refused a mother and son’s challenge to a deportation order made against the mother, finding that the Minister could reasonably proceed on the assumption that she would take her child with her.
The judicial review concerned the Minister for Justice’s decision to make a deportation order against the first applicant, a Nigerian national. Her son, also a Nigerian citizen, was the second applicant. The court did not review a deportation order against the child: none had been made, and judicial review proceedings concerning the refusal of his asylum application were pending.
The mother said threats to her life in Nigeria in 2005 arose from her husband’s involvement with a cult. She arrived in Ireland in March 2005 and gave birth to her son that June. Her refugee application and subsequent appeal were refused. The Minister made the deportation order on 15 September 2005 after departmental consideration of her case.
The applicants argued that the Minister had inadequately considered the family’s circumstances, the mother’s connection with Ireland and humanitarian factors under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999. They also said the principle of family unity had been applied against the child and that the decision failed to properly address their rights to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The respondents argued that the Minister was entitled to consider the information and representations actually provided. They said there had been no suggestion that the mother would leave her son in Ireland if deported.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the mother’s representatives had told the Minister that she and her infant son were living together, but had not said she might leave him behind. In those circumstances, he found it practical and reasonable for the Minister to assume she would take the child with her. He said there was no obligation to make further inquiries about whether the child would accompany her.
The judge accepted that family unity is a fundamental principle that should benefit dependants, not operate to their detriment. He found no error in its application here, because the court considered the family would remain together if the mother were deported. He also held that Article 8 rights were engaged, but found no potential interference with family or private life on the assumption that mother and child would travel together; a separate assessment of justification under Article 8(2) was therefore unnecessary.
The court concluded that the Minister had made no error and refused the relief sought. The judgment did not make a deportation order against the child or determine the pending judicial review of his asylum appeal.