The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of deportation orders made against an anonymised mother and her children, concluding there were no substantial grounds for the challenge. The decision addressed permission to bring a judicial review case; it was not a substantive hearing granting or refusing the requested declaration that the orders were void.
The family entered Ireland on 6 February 2003 and had permission to remain until 5 March that year. The judgment says the mother and her husband later worked for a contract-cleaning firm at Naas General Hospital without the work permits required, and that the family was unlawfully in the State after its permission expired. In March 2006, the Minister notified them of an intention to make deportation orders. Orders were made on 23 July 2008, and the family was notified of them in August.
The applicants argued, among other things, that the Minister had wrongly treated them as failed asylum seekers, failed to consider relevant representations and family circumstances, and did not give them a fair opportunity to respond to country information about Brazil. The judge found that the material considered by the Minister showed the application had been assessed as a request for humanitarian leave to remain by people who had overstayed, not as a failed asylum claim. He treated the asylum reference in the notification letter as an erroneous statement of reasons, and found no basis to conclude it had affected the decision.
The judge also considered the family’s Article 8 rights and the submissions about risk if returned to Brazil. He said the Minister’s reports addressed the family and domestic circumstances, including the mother’s relationship with her sister, and assessed whether relocation within Brazil was possible. The judge considered that the country information’s discussion of internal movement added little to what could be concluded as a matter of common sense, and that any failure to give notice of other, non-decisive material was not substantial enough to undermine the orders.
Other arguments concerning the children’s schooling, the consideration of representations, and the level of reasons owed by the Minister also failed to establish substantial grounds. The court therefore refused leave. The judgment does not record a final determination after a full judicial review hearing.