The High Court refused the applicants leave to appeal a judgment rejecting their challenge to a decision not to revoke a deportation order against Michael Igbosonu. The appeal application concerned the earlier merits judgment in Igbosonu v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1), [2017] IEHC 681.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2017, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered four proposed questions. He held that none justified leave to appeal. The order was limited to refusing leave; the court did not rehear or change the earlier decision.
One proposed question concerned whether the child applicant could challenge a decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 based on circumstances arising after the original deportation order. The judge said the child could have been joined to a challenge to that order while still unborn, but no such proceedings were brought. He also held that, absent exceptional circumstances not present here, a person indirectly affected by an immigration decision could not independently challenge it when the person to whom it was addressed had not done so.
The judge said the proposed question about the Minister’s proportionality assessment raised no new point of law and concerned the application of established principles to the facts. He also noted that the case was at the section 3(11) revocation stage, which he described as a more restrictive process.
The other proposed questions concerned the Minister’s consideration of the father’s risk of reoffending and the reasons given for considering the child’s best interests. The judge said those points had not been pleaded in the judicial review grounds. He further said the father’s personal circumstances, including remorse, understanding of the harm and rehabilitation, had been considered. On the child’s interests, he said the decision contained more than a bare conclusion, while the applicants had not pleaded the specific legal grounds they later relied on.
The court had previously rejected the application for certiorari of the decision refusing to revoke the deportation order. In this judgment, the judge reviewed the applicants’ earlier immigration and court proceedings and concluded that leave to appeal should be refused.