The High Court refused a father and his Irish citizen daughter leave to challenge a deportation order made against him, finding no stateable legal defect in the Minister’s assessment of the family’s circumstances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 13 January 2010, concerned a judicial review application challenging a 15 January 2009 deportation order. The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review, including an order to quash the deportation decision. The court refused leave under the threshold in section 5(2)(b) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. It did not itself make a deportation order or decide the family’s future residence arrangements.
The father, a Nigerian national, had been refused asylum after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld a recommendation that his account of fearing persecution in Nigeria was not credible. The Minister later refused his applications for subsidiary protection and leave to remain, then made the deportation order. His wife and two daughters were living in Ireland; the younger daughter, Mirabel, was an Irish citizen. The wife had permission to reside under the IBC 05 Scheme.
The family argued that the Minister had not properly assessed the impact of deportation on Mirabel’s constitutional and family rights or the family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also challenged the use of the “insurmountable obstacles” concept when considering whether the family could live together in Nigeria, and argued that the decision was disproportionate.
The court reviewed the Minister’s memorandum, which addressed the family’s circumstances, Mirabel’s age and schooling, the possibility of family life in Nigeria, and the State’s interest in immigration control. The court held that the Minister had considered the relevant personal and family rights and was not required, on the material provided, to undertake a detailed comparison of educational facilities in Ireland and Nigeria. Mirabel was six and had recently started primary school; the court noted that the school principal’s letter confirmed her class and her father’s role as carer but said nothing about her educational progress.
The court also rejected the claim that “insurmountable obstacles” had been treated as the sole test. It considered the family’s history, including that the parents had lived apart for years before the father joined them in Ireland, and found no stateable case that the Minister’s proportionality assessment was unreasonable. It held that the State’s interest in maintaining immigration controls could, in the circumstances, amount to a substantial reason for deportation.
Because no stateable legal defect had been shown, the court refused leave. It therefore did not need to consider the father’s request for an extension of time.