Judgment: 2012-11-06 · Court archive

High Court refuses Nigerian woman's challenge to deportation and revocation refusal

High Court, Judicial Review · [2012] IEHC 458

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • C.M. (Applicant)
What

High Court refuses Nigerian woman's challenge to deportation and revocation refusal

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
  • Cork
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Paul McDermott held that challenges to the earlier refugee-status and deportation decisions were brought outside the applicable judicial-review time limits. No application extending time had been made.

The High Court has refused a Nigerian woman's attempt to challenge her deportation from Ireland, rejecting arguments based on asylum procedures, her planned marriage to an Irish citizen and the Minister's consideration of her case.

The woman, identified as P.U.O., arrived in Ireland on 5 September 2010 and unsuccessfully sought asylum. She began a relationship with Irish citizen C.M. in December 2010 and they decided to marry in February 2011.

Her refugee application had already been rejected. In March 2011, solicitors sought leave for her to remain in Ireland but made no reference to the relationship or intended marriage. Immigration authorities later learned of the marriage plans through a Garda report arising from concerns about documentation presented to the Registrar of Marriages in Cork.

A deportation order was made on 9 August 2011. The woman subsequently applied to have it revoked, arguing among other things that deportation interfered with the couple's right to marry. That application was refused on 17 April 2012.

Mr Justice Paul McDermott held that challenges to the earlier refugee-status and deportation decisions were brought outside the applicable judicial-review time limits. No application extending time had been made.

The judge also considered the substantive arguments in case that conclusion was wrong. He found no substantial basis for challenging the asylum procedures under EU law, the constitutionality of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, or the use of civil servants to make decisions in the Minister's name under the established Carltona principle.

On the proposed marriage, the court stressed that the relationship had not been put forward when leave to remain was originally sought. The authorities nevertheless considered it. The applicants knew the woman's immigration status was precarious when the relationship developed, and an intention to marry did not create an automatic right to remain in Ireland.

The application was refused in its entirety and the interim injunction preventing deportation was discharged.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review