The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a deportation order against M.O., a Nigerian national, after finding that the reasons for the Minister’s decision on refoulement could be discerned from the decision and its context.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 5 November 2014. The proceedings were brought by M.O., M.K. and two children identified as L.K. and T.K. The court first extended the time to bring the challenge: it was 37 days out of time, but the court accepted that the adults had formed an early intention to challenge the order and had good and sufficient reason for the delay.
M.O. arrived in Ireland in October 2008 and claimed asylum. His claim and later subsidiary protection application were refused. The Minister made a deportation order on 8 December 2009, notified to M.O. on 11 December. M.O. and M.K. married on 31 December. The court recorded that the Minister had been told of their engagement and intended marriage, but not of M.K.’s children or the possible effect of deportation on them. The court rejected the claims that the Minister had failed to consider the right to marry, Article 8 family and private life rights, or the constitutional protection of the family.
A central issue was whether the Minister’s decision that deportation would not breach the statutory prohibition on refoulement gave an adequate account of its reasons. M.O.’s asylum claim had described threats connected to a demand that he take over his late father’s role as a priest at a shrine. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had rejected his account as not credible, and that decision was not challenged by judicial review. The court noted that no specific new submissions on refoulement were made with the application for leave to remain.
The court found that the case differed from earlier judgments in which the reasons for rejecting a claimed risk on return were too unclear. It said the facts and country information set out in the examination of file, read alongside the earlier asylum and subsidiary protection decisions, made the rationale for the Minister’s decision clear. The court said it was not acting as an appeal court on the merits of the refoulement assessment. It also concluded that, even if the reasons had been defective, the material before the Minister would not justify quashing the order in the circumstances.
M.O. had been deported on 3 February 2010, after an injunction to prevent his removal was refused. The court declined to assess the merits of his application to revoke the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. It refused relief on that aspect and on the other grounds of challenge. The judgment did not decide the merits of the revocation application.