The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by KRA and her minor daughter, BMA, against the refusal to revoke deportation orders. The court held that the child’s constitutional right to primary education did not give her a right to remain in Ireland to access that education.
The appeal concerned the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision of 18 May 2015 refusing a request to revoke the orders under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The High Court had refused the applicants’ judicial review challenge in May 2016. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by the President on 27 October 2017, dismissed their appeal from that decision.
BMA was born in Ireland in March 2008 and had attended primary school there since September 2012, according to the appellants’ submissions. They argued that Article 42A of the Constitution required the Minister to weigh her education rights against the State’s immigration interests, consider her circumstances individually, and account for the education available in Nigeria. They also said the Minister’s conclusion that Nigeria had a functioning education system was irrational.
The court accepted that children in Ireland, including non-citizen children, have a right to education. But it held that this right does not create an entitlement to live in Ireland for the purpose of receiving education, or prevent deportation to a country with an inferior education system. It found Article 42A did not materially change BMA’s position or require a fresh assessment of the deportation case.
The court also rejected the claim that the Minister’s consideration was invalid because KRA and BMA’s revocation request was assessed jointly. It said there was no general rule requiring separate consideration of a parent and child in these circumstances, and found no reason their applications had to be analysed separately. The appellants had not shown that the Minister’s conclusion about Nigeria’s education system was irrational.
The judges also considered whether statutory restrictions on judicial review applied to a refusal to revoke a deportation order. The court concluded that section 5(1)(m) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 applied. It noted, however, that the question was effectively academic in this appeal because the High Court had authorised the proceedings and appeal.
The appeal court had earlier granted an injunction preventing deportation until the appeal was decided. The judgment states that the injunction issue was addressed in a separate judgment by Irvine J, with which the President agreed. The final order in this appeal was to dismiss it.