The High Court dismissed a Nigerian family’s judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke deportation orders. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave judgment on 25 April 2018, finding that the applicants had not shown grounds to overturn the decision under the limited review available for a refusal under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
The applicants, anonymised in the judgment as C.M., O.V.M. and C.G.M., arrived in Ireland in 2007 and applied for asylum. Their application and an appeal were rejected, their refugee status was refused in 2008, and their later subsidiary protection application was also refused. Deportation orders were made in April 2009.
The first applicant was directed to report on 25 May 2009 but did not attend. The family left its accommodation centre in June 2009 without giving a forwarding address. They formally reported on 13 April 2017, after nearly eight years. The judgment records that the Minister was given their current address in January 2017.
The family sought revocation of the orders under section 3(11). Their submissions included the second applicant’s studies at the University of Limerick, an alleged suicide risk, the family’s life in Ireland and the best interests of the youngest applicant. The court held that the Minister had considered the submissions and that no exceptional circumstances or illegality had been established. It also found that the Minister could take account of the prolonged failure to report.
The judge said the court’s role was limited and that the Minister’s assessment of the suicide-risk material was for the Minister, provided it was reasoned and lawful. He considered the submitted psychologist’s report insufficient to establish the claimed risk. The court did not make a finding that the second applicant had no mental health risk; the judgment urged those concerned with his welfare to ensure he received appropriate support if the suicidal ideation was real.
The court also held that the applicants’ prolonged evasion justified refusing relief as a matter of discretion, even if they had otherwise been entitled to it. The proceedings were dismissed. The judgment did not itself make a new deportation order; it rejected the challenge to the Minister’s refusal to revoke the existing orders.