The High Court has refused an injunction to stop the deportation of a Nigerian woman, after granting leave for her family’s judicial review challenge to a decision concerning her deportation order.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave the ruling on 31 July 2018. The applicants sought an injunction as the woman’s deportation was due within hours. The court had granted leave to bring the proceedings that day, but said the application to do so had first been made on 30 July. The challenged decision had been made on 21 May and notified to the applicants’ solicitors on 31 May.
The proceedings concern a decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister for Justice and Equality amended the woman’s deportation order to include at least three alternative names or aliases. The judge stressed that the deportation itself was being carried out under the existing deportation order, which was not the measure being challenged. He noted that a section 3(11) request could result in a right to remain only in exceptional circumstances.
The woman arrived in Ireland in May 2006 and sought asylum. Her application was refused, and that refusal was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. A deportation order was made in September 2007. The judge said she had evaded the order for more than a decade. The applicants said she presented in February 2018; the Minister’s side said June, but could not provide evidence on that point at the hearing.
The family argued that deportation could interfere with the woman’s relationships with her sister and nephew, an Irish citizen child. They alleged the child had special needs and that the woman was his primary carer. They also said the sister had mental health issues and could not care for him. The judge said those matters should first be put to the Minister on full information. He noted the family had support from extended relatives.
Applying the injunction test in Okunade v Minister for Justice and Equality, the judge accepted there was an arguable case because leave had been granted. However, he gave weight to the public interest in implementing the deportation order, the woman’s long evasion and the late timing of the injunction application. He also observed that medical information exhibited in court had not first been submitted to the Minister, and said the challenge did not appear overwhelmingly strong at that stage, without prejudging the proceedings.
The court declined to restrain the deportation. The ruling determined only the interim injunction application; the judicial review challenge remained unresolved.