The High Court has rejected a family’s challenge to the indefinite duration of deportation orders under the Immigration Act 1999, finding that the legislation was not unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights on the facts of their case.
The judicial review concerned the deportation of Davit Arabuli, a Georgian national, to Georgia on 4 November 2011. His wife, Lela Sivsivadze, and their two minor daughters were also applicants. The family challenged sections 3(1) and 3(11) of the Act, arguing that the requirement to remain outside the State could impose a disproportionate, potentially lifelong separation and that the Minister’s power to revoke orders lacked legislative guidance.
The court heard that Arabuli’s deportation order was made in 2001, after he failed to attend asylum interviews. The judgment records that he later used multiple identities, did not report as directed and did not cooperate with efforts to verify his identity. The judge said the resulting delay in deportation was attributable to Arabuli’s conduct. Sivsivadze’s refugee claim had been rejected, but she had been granted temporary humanitarian permission to remain, extended until 2014.
Arabuli made three applications to revoke the order under section 3(11). The Minister refused each; the third refusal, on 3 November 2011, preceded his deportation the following day. The High Court found that the Minister had considered the family circumstances in the latest decision and that the refusal was not shown to be irrational or unreasonable. The court also held that the revocation power was a discretion to be exercised in individual cases under legal and constitutional principles, rather than a law-making power requiring the criteria argued for by the applicants.
On the constitutional challenge, the judge concluded that section 3(1) was proportionate in the circumstances and that both challenged subsections were entitled to the presumption of constitutionality. The court emphasized the State’s interest in immigration control and the statutory safeguards and review process, including the ability to apply for revocation.
The court also declined to declare section 3(1) incompatible with the Convention. It treated the duration of exclusion as one factor in a broader assessment, alongside immigration history, family ties and whether the family could relocate. The judge found no insurmountable obstacle to the family establishing itself in Georgia, while acknowledging that relocation could cause hardship. The judgment did not rule that indefinite orders could never breach the Convention in another case.
The applicants’ requested relief was refused. The decision concerned these applicants and this record; it did not invalidate deportation orders generally.