The High Court has refused an applicant leave to challenge a deportation order and the refusal of leave to remain, finding that his arguments did not establish substantial grounds. Mr Justice Birmingham delivered judgment on 12 May 2010.
The court granted a short extension of time because documents supplied by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform may have been incomplete and the applicant appeared to have decided to challenge the decisions once he learned of them. The extension allowed the application to proceed; it did not determine the challenge in his favour.
The applicant, identified in the judgment by initials, is a Nigerian national whose asylum claim was refused by the relevant authorities. He later sought subsidiary protection and leave to remain. Both were refused, and the Minister signed a deportation order on 10 July 2009. The applicant argued that deportation was disproportionate and breached his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He said he had lived apart from his father in Nigeria for about seven years before joining him in Ireland. He then lived with his father, stepmother and half-siblings, attended secondary school, and sat the Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate examinations. The judge noted that the submissions to the Minister referred to family circumstances and schooling but gave little detail about the relationships or any particular dependency within the family.
The court concluded that the material put before the Minister did not establish family life under Article 8 beyond normal emotional ties. It also found that the applicant had entered Ireland without initially seeking to regularise his position and had delayed making his asylum claim. In the judge’s view, the case concerned a choice of country of residence rather than interference by the State with a protected family life.
The judge went on to consider whether any interference could be justified, even though the Minister had proceeded on the basis that Article 8 was not engaged. Reading the Minister-approved report as a whole, the court found that it addressed the family circumstances, Article 8 and the competing public interest in immigration control. The court was satisfied that the Minister had considered the submissions and that the decision was not shown to be disproportionate.
The application for leave to bring judicial review was refused. The court did not quash the deportation order or the refusal of leave to remain.