The High Court has rejected a Nigerian couple’s challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision to maintain a deportation order against the husband.
Mr Justice McCarthy held that the Minister’s January 2006 decision was a rational exercise of his discretion and disclosed no error of law capable of justifying judicial review.
The first applicant arrived in Ireland in July 2001 and unsuccessfully sought asylum. He later married the second applicant, another Nigerian citizen who had been living legally in Ireland since about May 2000, with her permission requiring annual renewal.
After the first applicant’s refugee appeal failed, the Minister made a deportation order in February 2005. Earlier court proceedings were subsequently compromised, following which fresh representations seeking leave to remain were submitted in December 2005.
The Minister reconsidered the case and on January 20, 2006 maintained the deportation order. Further representations referred to fertility treatment being undergone by the couple and an upcoming consultation at the National Maternity Hospital.
The applicants argued that removal would breach their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was disproportionate and irrational, and failed adequately to account for relevant matters. They also challenged the standard of judicial review traditionally applied to administrative decisions and sought a declaration concerning compatibility with the Convention.
The court rejected those arguments. Mr Justice McCarthy found that fertility treatment did not create an entitlement to remain in Ireland and that the couple were free to continue their family life in Nigeria, even if doing so involved hardship. He also noted that their relationship developed while the first applicant’s immigration status was uncertain.
The judge held that the established O’Keeffe principles governing irrationality review remained applicable and declined to adopt a separate “anxious scrutiny” test. He found that the Minister had considered the relevant statutory and family circumstances and dismissed the application.