The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by two Mauritian students and their son against the refusal to renew their permissions to remain in Ireland. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 4 March 2016, concerned whether the Minister for Justice had to consider the family’s private and family life when deciding their application.
The parents entered Ireland on student permissions in 2006 and 2008. Their son was born in Ireland in 2009. A student policy introduced in 2011 set a maximum seven-year period in the State. In December 2013, the family asked the Minister to vary their permissions and grant them “stamp four” status. The first parent’s permission expired in January 2014. The Minister refused a long-term residency application in October 2014 and directed the parents to leave by 3 December that year.
The judge held that students admitted under a scheme with a clear seven-year limit were in a precarious position. In general, their private and family life rights to remain in Ireland were minimal or non-existent and did not require consideration by the Minister. He said the family could return to Mauritius together, and found they had not established exceptional circumstances.
The court also held that the refusal did not materially interfere with any relevant rights in this case. The family could leave Ireland and apply for permission from Mauritius; any such application would have to be considered fairly. The judge noted that judicial review could be available if a later application from abroad were not properly considered.
The family also challenged the Minister’s policy and argued that the Minister had unlawfully fettered her discretion. The judge rejected those grounds, relying in part on later Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions. He found that the Minister had considered the applicants’ submissions and had not treated herself as unable to consider rights.
A letter to the second parent mistakenly suggested that her permission had been reduced, although it remained valid. The judge said the error did not warrant relief, particularly as it had been clarified. The court dismissed the application. At the hearing in February 2016, no proposal to make a deportation order had been made; the judgment itself made no such order.