The High Court has allowed a Nigerian-born man to pursue one ground of judicial review against a decision to deport him, finding substantial grounds to argue that the Minister’s analysis of his family life may have misunderstood or overlooked his two sisters’ permission to remain in Ireland. The court stayed enforcement of the deportation order until the proceedings are determined.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 21 November 2016. The applicant had entered Ireland with his parents in 2007, aged 12. After temporary and student permissions, his application to renew permission was refused. The Minister proposed deportation in February 2015 and made a deportation order in September 2016.
The applicant’s sisters were living in the State with permission. One, then aged 17, had permission until she turned 18 in 2017; the younger sister, then aged 11, had permission until her 16th birthday in 2020. Both lived with the Sannis in Letterkenny, according to the judgment.
For the applicant, counsel Ian Whelan argued that the deportation decision wrongly treated him as not settled and failed to weigh relevant matters. The judge rejected that and the other challenges concerning proportionality, reasons and humanitarian considerations. He said the applicant was not a settled migrant, having had temporary and student permissions and then been unlawfully in the State for three years. The court found no substantial grounds to pursue those arguments.
The judge did, however, identify a substantial ground concerning the family-life analysis. Although the Minister’s decision discussed the applicant’s parents, girlfriend and a person with whom he had spent part of his childhood, it did not mention his sisters’ presence in Ireland with the Minister’s permission. Because the decision had included a narrative discussion of family circumstances, the omission of what the judge considered the most important element gave grounds to argue that the decision was tainted by misunderstanding or error.
The court granted leave only on that ground: whether the respondent’s analysis gave any or due regard to the sisters and their subsisting permissions. It refused leave on the remaining grounds, directed the applicant to serve an amended statement of grounds and originating notice of motion within seven days, and stayed enforcement of the deportation order until the proceedings are determined. The judgment decides permission to pursue the challenge; it does not determine the judicial review itself.