The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a deportation order made against a Chinese national who had lived in Ireland without permission since 2007 and operated restaurants here. The court also ordered him to pay the respondent’s costs.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 30 September 2021, concerned an order made by the Minister for Justice on 9 March 2020. The applicant sought to have that order quashed, arguing that the Minister had failed to properly assess his private and family life, employment history and prospects, and the proportionality of deporting him.
The applicant entered Ireland through Northern Ireland in 2007 without permission. He lived with his adult niece, her husband and their young daughter, and had close relationships with other relatives, including a nephew who was also his business partner. He had operated takeaway restaurants and continued to work as head chef and proprietor. The judgment records that he had spent €60,000 fitting out his most recently established restaurant. An employment permit granted in 2017 was later revoked because he did not have a work visa.
The Minister’s decision acknowledged the applicant’s family connections and business activities, but concluded that the public interest and common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems outweighed the factors supporting leave to remain. The applicant argued that the Minister had wrongly discounted his work prospects because he lacked permission to work. The court found no such error: the Minister had noted that lack of permission as part of the overall balance, rather than using it to nullify a finding of reasonable prospects.
The court also rejected the challenges based on private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It accepted that the applicant had close bonds with his extended family, but found that the Minister’s conclusion that exceptional circumstances had not been established was open to her. The court said no submissions had described effects of deportation beyond the normal consequences, and found the decision that Article 8 family life had not been established was not irrational or unreasonable.
The court held that the Minister’s overall balancing decision was within her remit and was not irrational or unreasonable. It also rejected the constitutional challenges: Article 41 did not apply to the family relationships at issue, and the applicant had not explained how consideration of Article 40.3 would have changed the decision. The court refused the relief sought and ordered costs against the applicant.