The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against M.A., a Nigerian national and father of three Irish citizen children. The court found the refusal was not fundamentally flawed on any of the grounds advanced.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 28 March 2014. The case concerned only the Minister’s second refusal to revoke the order, made on 7 March 2012. The deportation order itself, made in 2009, and the first refusal to revoke it had not been challenged in court.
The family argued that the Minister had misapplied the European Court of Justice’s Zambrano ruling and failed to give proper weight to constitutional and human rights protections, including the children’s interests and family life. They relied on M.A.’s health conditions and his partner J.S.’s medical condition, as well as the effect of deportation on the family.
The court held that Zambrano did not require a right of residence in these circumstances. The children could remain in Ireland with their Irish citizen mother and would not be forced to leave Ireland or the European Union because of M.A.’s deportation. The judgment said the children’s circumstances did not establish the dependency that would make the refusal deprive them of the substance of their EU citizenship rights. It also found that the EU Charter’s family-life provision did not apply on the court’s determination that EU citizenship rights had not been denied.
Medical reports submitted with the second revocation application described M.A.’s conditions and treatment, and the Minister considered whether his return to Nigeria would breach protections against inhuman or degrading treatment or his right to private life. The decision relied on country information indicating treatment was available in Nigeria. The judge found the evidence supported the conclusion that M.A.’s condition was not so critical that removal would threaten his life or breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court also declined to require a fresh overall assessment of the family’s circumstances. It noted that family disruption and J.S.’s health had been raised in earlier proceedings, while the children’s medical circumstances were not supported by reports. The new material about M.A.’s health had been considered, but the judge found it did not require the Minister to revisit the earlier assessment of family rights.
The court dismissed the challenge to the 2012 refusal. It did not make a new deportation order; the proceedings concerned whether that refusal to revoke the existing order was lawful.