The High Court refused an interlocutory injunction that sought to prevent the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from implementing deportation orders against a father and two of his sons before a hearing on whether they could bring a judicial review challenge.
The application was made before the leave hearing. The Minister had declined to promise not to implement the orders in the meantime. The court’s decision concerned only the request for interim relief; it did not determine the leave application or the legality of the deportation orders.
The six applicants were a Nigerian family: two parents and four minor children. The mother came to Ireland in 2003, leaving her husband and two sons in Nigeria. The father and those sons arrived in Ireland in 2006 and sought asylum. The judgment records that the father said he had come to join his wife and infant daughter, not because he feared persecution. Their asylum application was unsuccessful. A second child was born in Ireland in 2009. The first child was an Irish citizen; the judgment said the second might also be one.
The three deportation orders were made on 19 May 2010 against the father and the two sons. The applicants said their proposed judicial review raised issues about the Minister’s assessment of the children’s welfare and rights, including the possible Irish citizenship of the younger child, and whether judicial review provided an effective remedy. The judge considered those arguments sufficiently stateable to proceed on the assumption that a fair issue had been raised. He did not decide their merits.
The judge instead focused on the balance of convenience and whether damages could adequately address harm. He said judicial review would not automatically suspend the orders and found that return to Nigeria would not expose the family to a risk of irreversible harm of the kind alleged. The court noted that even if the orders were later quashed, the Minister might be required to reassess their impact rather than abandon deportation altogether.
The applicants also argued that separating the younger children from their father and brothers risked emotional or psychological harm. The judge found no evidence supporting that claim and said irreparable harm was not shown to be inevitable or probable. He considered that, if the judicial review ultimately succeeded, the court could grant relief requiring the father and sons to be readmitted.
The court therefore refused the interlocutory injunction. The judgment did not decide the pending application for leave to seek judicial review or make a final ruling on the deportation orders.