The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenging a deportation order against Rais Akhtar, ruling that he had not put his family-rights arguments to the Minister before the order was made and had no entitlement to remain in Ireland to marry.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 18 December 2018. The court also refused an injunction against the deportation. The judgment said Mr Akhtar was due to present for deportation on 19 December.
Mr Akhtar entered Ireland from the UK in May 2015 and later sought permission to remain as a dependent of his UK-citizen brother. That application was refused in June 2016. After receiving notice of a proposed deportation, he made representations under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The judge said those submissions did not mention a proposed marriage, and the information about his family circumstances was sparse.
Mr Akhtar went through an Islamic marriage ceremony with Canadian citizen Zahira Khan in August 2018. She later returned to Ireland but was refused leave to land and detained. She was released by consent after a High Court inquiry was ordered in separate proceedings. The judgment records that the respondent’s counsel said her release followed an incorrectly ticked box on the arrest and detention order. Ms Khan later left Ireland and was back in Canada.
The Minister made the deportation order on 26 October 2018 and notified Mr Akhtar on 13 November. The couple had intended to marry in a civil ceremony in Ireland on 3 January 2019 if he had been allowed to stay.
The judge said the Minister could consider only information made known during the deportation process. Because Mr Akhtar had not raised his family rights in his section 3 representations, he could not challenge the order on that basis.
Addressing the marriage argument, the judge said Mr Akhtar was entitled to marry Ms Khan under human-rights law, but neither had lawful permission to be in Ireland. His stated intention to leave after marrying did not give him a legal entitlement to remain for the ceremony. The judge added that even an existing marriage would not itself create a right to stay or make deportation unlawful.
The court said it would also refuse relief on discretionary grounds, citing the respondent’s allegation of fraudulent immigration claims and supporting documents. It rejected the injunction application, finding the relevant public-interest and orderly-implementation considerations weighed against it. The proceedings were dismissed and the injunction refused.