The High Court has refused a family leave to seek judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against the first applicant. The court concluded that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds that the decision was unlawful. It did not determine a full judicial review of the decision.
The applicants sought to challenge a decision dated 6 October 2015. The first applicant had applied for revocation of a deportation order made in 2005. The Minister refused the application, affirmed the order and amended it to include another name used by the first applicant. The judgment’s introduction refers to a decision dated 19 October 2015 and an order dated 29 November 2015, while its account of the immigration history gives different dates. The source does not explain these discrepancies.
The family’s arguments included claims that the Minister had inadequately assessed their family life and the children’s best interests, treated the first applicant differently from the second applicant, failed to give him a chance to address missing evidence about when he returned to Ireland, and had not considered the effect of deportation on a child’s European Union citizenship rights. They also relied on outstanding asylum applications for minor applicants.
The judge rejected the grounds at the leave stage. He said the family-life and children’s-interests arguments did not identify a specific legal error, despite the decision recording that those matters had been considered. The discrimination claim lacked evidence that gender was the only relevant difference between the first and second applicants; the court also noted that relevant ministerial decisions concerning the second applicant had not been exhibited.
On fair procedures, the court held that the Minister was not required to return to the applicant to discuss weaknesses in the revocation application. The judge also found that the European Union rights argument and the argument based on the children’s asylum applications had not been put to the Minister, and were not supported by the evidence before the court.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. The ruling decided only whether the applicants had established the required grounds to bring the challenge.