The Supreme Court has dismissed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal and affirmed the High Court order in a challenge to the Minister’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against AZ. The Court held that the Minister had not properly assessed the proposed deportation’s effects on AZ’s wife, MZ, their son, CZ, and their family unit.
The judgment, delivered by Maurice Collins J on 25 July 2024, concerned the Minister’s decision following an agreement to give “fresh consideration” to AZ’s application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to revoke a deportation order made in June 2019. Collins J rejected the Minister’s argument that the proceedings were an impermissible collateral attack on that earlier order.
The judgment recognised factors that could support deportation. AZ entered Ireland unlawfully, apparently using a false passport, worked and remained without permission, failed to disclose a 2003 criminal offence in a later application, and committed serious offences in 2012. He received a seven-year prison sentence, with three years suspended, and served three years with remission. The judgment also criticised abusive and intimidating emails he sent to Department of Justice officers.
Against those factors, AZ has been married to Irish citizen MZ since 2012, and their relationship dates to 2005. Their son CZ, born in 2007, is also an Irish citizen. The evidence described close family bonds and AZ’s important role in raising and caring for CZ, who has health and developmental needs. Collins J said the Minister’s file note referred to “disruption”, but the evidence indicated a more profound impact, including the loss of AZ’s day-to-day care.
The judgment said the evidence pointed to relocation to Albania being implausible, a position accepted by the Minister’s counsel at the appeal hearing. The Minister’s assessment had not adequately addressed the prospect that deportation would indefinitely separate the family, or the practical effects on MZ and CZ. Given CZ’s needs, the Court said a particularly rigorous assessment was required.
Collins J agreed that a child’s best interests must be a primary consideration when deportation affects that child, while clarifying that they are not paramount and do not create a presumption against deportation. The judgment did not decide that AZ must be allowed to remain. It concluded that the countervailing family factors had not been properly considered and that the matter should be considered afresh by the Minister, with comprehensive and up-to-date information about CZ’s health and development provided by the applicants.