The High Court has rejected an Indian national’s challenge to a deportation order, finding that the Minister for Justice had considered his circumstances and representations under the applicable deportation process.
In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2016, Ms Justice Faherty denied the relief sought in judicial review proceedings brought by Anil Kumar. The case concerned a deportation order made on 10 May 2013, after his permission to remain in Ireland as a student had expired.
Mr Kumar had arrived in Ireland in December 2004 and studied at several colleges. He applied for residence based on marriages to an EU citizen and later an Irish citizen; both applications were unsuccessful. In February 2013, after receiving notice that deportation was proposed, his solicitors asked the Minister to defer the decision and allow him to remain until June so he could complete examinations. They also cited his studies, work at a service station and a conditional offer of full-time employment if he received Stamp 4 permission.
The applicant argued that the Minister treated his request as representations against deportation without giving him a fair chance to make further representations, and failed to consider temporary leave separately. He also challenged the assessment of his employment prospects, the basis for finding deportation conducive to the common good, and the refusal to give three months’ notice to leave.
The judge found the February letter engaged with the notice offering three statutory options, including making representations against deportation. The Minister was entitled to consider the request to postpone deportation as part of those representations and was not required to suspend the process or separately assess a new permission application under the Immigration Act 2004. The judgment says the applicant could have made further representations while the matter remained under consideration, but did not do so.
On employment, the court found the Minister had weighed the applicant’s work history and conditional job offer against unemployment data and the economic downturn. The judge concluded that the assessment of his prospects of obtaining long-term secure employment was not irrational. She also rejected the challenge to the common-good assessment, finding that maintaining the integrity of immigration procedures could support deportation when the decision-maker had considered the applicant’s personal circumstances.
The court held that the applicant did not qualify for the statutory three-month notice because his student permission had expired and his continued residence lacked a legal basis. It also found that the deportation order was not invalid because the date to leave was stated in the notice sent on 20 May 2013, which required him to leave by 6 June 2013.
The court denied the relief sought. The judgment records that grounds 4 and 5 were not pursued; the remaining challenges were not made out.