The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a Nigerian grandmother and members of her family over the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke her deportation order, finding that the Minister had properly reconsidered the case.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 19 March 2015, concerned a request for leave to begin judicial review proceedings. The Court did not decide a full judicial review of the Minister’s decision. It found that the appeal remained live even though the grandmother, identified in the judgment by the assumed name Esmé J, had been deported in February 2009. The order could affect her ability to return to Ireland, including for a family visit.
Esmé J had come to Ireland from Nigeria in 2006 and applied for asylum. The judgment records that she said she had no fear of persecution and wanted to help care for her daughter’s children. Her asylum application and appeal were rejected, and a deportation order followed. Two of the children are Irish citizens. The Court noted that the family did not challenge the daughter’s entitlement to remain in Ireland.
After earlier High Court proceedings were settled, the Minister agreed to consider an application to revoke the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The order itself was not withdrawn by the settlement. The Minister reconsidered it after receiving representations about family life, the children’s circumstances and the effect of separation. An official’s analysis accepted that deportation would interfere with family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but concluded that the decision was proportionate.
The Supreme Court said an application for reconsideration must make the applicant’s best case at the time. The Minister was not required to invite further material or enter into correspondence about possible evidence. A psychiatric report was produced later, during the judicial review proceedings; the Court said it did not establish that the Minister’s earlier consideration was inadequate.
The Court rejected the argument that the family’s circumstances established a constitutional right for a grandmother to remain in Ireland. It said the constitutional guarantees cited principally protect parents and children, and that immigration control is a legitimate state aim. The Court also considered the family’s Article 8 arguments in light of Esmé J’s precarious immigration status.
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s refusal of leave to commence judicial review proceedings therefore stood. The ruling addressed whether the applicants had shown grounds to proceed with judicial review; it was not a fresh decision on an application for permission for Esmé J to enter Ireland.