The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by a Nigerian woman to an immigration officer’s 2006 decision to refuse her leave to land in Ireland. Mr Justice Charleton found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the decision, but said the ruling did not itself authorise her return to custody or removal from the State.
The woman, identified in the judgment as F. K., had been granted permission to remain in Ireland as the mother of an Irish citizen child. That permission did not give her an automatic right to land after travelling abroad, the court said. On returning from Holyhead in August 2006, she was refused leave to land under the Immigration Act 2004 on two stated grounds: that she intended to travel to Great Britain or Northern Ireland without qualifying for admission, and that she intended to enter Ireland for a purpose other than the one she had expressed.
The judgment recounts that UK immigration officials encountered her with two Nigerian passports that appeared valid over the same period, and that another passport was found in her handbag. The judge said he did not know whether the passports were genuine. The woman’s travel stamps, statements to officials and unexplained possession of multiple passports were among the matters the Irish immigration officer could consider, the court found. The judge also said her testimony should be treated with caution unless corroborated.
The woman had initially been detained, but was released on conditions in August 2006, including residence at a specified address, daily reporting to Gardaí and surrendering travel documents. The High Court later treated her case as a judicial review of the refusal of leave to land, rather than an ongoing habeas corpus application about detention. No habeas corpus inquiry took place.
The court held that by the time of judgment the woman had been at liberty in Ireland for about 18 months. The statutory power to detain and remove a person who had been refused leave to land under the relevant provision applied only where the person had been unlawfully in the State for less than three months. That period could not be extended by treating her conditional release as detention, the judge said.
The decision therefore did not settle any later deportation question. If the Minister wished to pursue removal, the formal deportation procedure under the Immigration Act 1999 appeared to be the relevant route. The court made no order in the judicial review.