The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of deportation orders made against a mother and her daughter, finding that neither of the two grounds advanced raised a substantial issue. The court said it did not need to rely on its discretion to refuse relief because the application failed on its merits at the leave stage.
The application sought to challenge orders made on 4 February 2009 after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected the mother’s asylum claim. The judgment records that the tribunal found her account of fearing persecution in Nigeria as a former lesbian not credible. The mother and child then applied for subsidiary protection and made representations seeking permission to remain temporarily in Ireland.
The judge noted that the Minister’s consideration of the original representations addressed statutory matters, possible refoulement and the family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s analysis recorded that the child was not an Irish citizen, was entitled to Nigerian citizenship, and that the mother’s parents and siblings remained in Nigeria. It also noted the recent arrival in Ireland of the second applicant, described as the mother’s husband, who was in the asylum process.
The mother had stated in her subsidiary-protection application that her husband lived in Nigeria. The judgment says he had entered Ireland in August 2008, before that application was made. His presence was disclosed in additional representations on 2 February 2009, after the Minister’s file examination had concluded on 22 January and shortly before the deportation orders. The Minister reconsidered the case after receiving those representations and reaffirmed the orders by a decision dated 23 February. That later decision was not challenged in this application.
The applicants argued that deportation would break up the family and be disproportionate under Article 8. The court rejected that ground, saying the Minister had considered the family-life issue on the representations provided and that the family’s ties were in Nigeria. It also said the second applicant could leave Ireland with them and had no right to insist that family life be pursued in a country where none had a current right to permanent residence.
The applicants also claimed a legitimate expectation that the mother and child could remain until the second applicant’s asylum claim was decided. The judge found no promise or other basis for such an expectation, and said the second applicant’s claim did not limit the Minister’s ability to continue the process, including deportation.
The judgment expressed concern about the lack of candour over the second applicant’s relationship to the child and the earlier failure to disclose his presence. However, the court did not base its decision on that concern. It refused leave; the question of an injunction therefore did not arise.