The High Court refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging a deportation order made against Nigerian national Akinwale Akinkoulie. Mr Justice Clarke held that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds for challenging either the order or, even if that were the target, the Minister’s later refusal to revoke it.
The case concerned Mr Akinkoulie and Elaine Power, who were married in September 2004. They had planned to marry in July, but Mr Akinkoulie was taken from Ms Power’s home on 16 July with a view to deportation. The order had been signed on 3 June and sent to the address he had previously given immigration authorities. He was staying temporarily at Ms Power’s residence and did not learn of the order there.
After his arrest, his solicitors told the Minister about the impending marriage and asked that the order be rescinded. The Minister declined. A departmental memorandum recorded that the Minister had considered the marriage information but it did not alter the decision to deport. The applicants began proceedings, and earlier court orders restrained deportation and secured Mr Akinkoulie’s release pending the case. The couple subsequently married and lived together.
The judge said the order’s validity had to be assessed based on the circumstances when it was made. The Minister had not been told of the intended marriage before signing it, despite a notice of intention to marry having been given to the Registrar of Marriages. The judge said the central complaint therefore concerned the later refusal to revoke the order, rather than the order itself.
The court considered whether that refusal could be challenged on family-rights grounds. It said the applicants were entitled to have their family position considered, but had no automatic right to remain together in Ireland. At the time of the refusal, they were not yet married, had apparently been in a relationship for about 16 months, and Mr Akinkoulie knew deportation was intended. The judge found no substantial grounds to argue that they were entitled to revocation or that the Minister’s consideration could be challenged.
The applicants also argued that delay in deciding earlier representations, the use of a ministerial approval stamp, and access to documents undermined the decisions. The court found no substantial grounds on those points either. It left open whether the case could be converted into a challenge to the refusal to revoke, because that raised a separate claim and time-limit issue. As it found no substantial grounds even on that basis, it said the conversion question did not arise. The judgment did not decide the pending marriage-based residency application.