The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision not to revoke a deportation order against the first named applicant, a Nigerian national. The original deportation order was not challenged in the proceedings.
The first applicant entered Ireland on a two-month visitor’s visa in October 2008 and was permitted to remain until December that year. His application to extend the visa was refused. He stayed in Ireland, and a deportation order was made in June 2010. Later that month, he applied under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 for the order to be revoked.
The challenge concerned the Minister’s subsequent affirmation of the order. The applicants argued that the decision failed to address the Irish citizen applicants’ rights under Article 41 of the Constitution, was disproportionate, and inadequately considered family life rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and rights under Article 7 of the EU Charter.
By the time the section 3(11) application was considered, the other applicants had become Irish citizens. The court said the Minister had been aware of the family circumstances and had considered the relationships, supporting letters and other material. It rejected the argument that the absence of a specific reference to Article 41 meant those rights had not been considered.
The judgment noted that the first applicant had spent his life in Nigeria before coming to Ireland as an adult, had been lawfully present for two months, and had not been financially dependent on his family. The court said his relationships with the other applicants developed after his arrival and that there was little evidence of more than normal emotional ties when the deportation order was made. It also found no significant new material had been advanced to support revocation.
The court was not satisfied that a European Court of Human Rights decision cited by the applicants represented a substantive change in the law relevant to this case. It concluded that the Minister’s decision on the section 3(11) application was not wrong in law or irrational, and that the family circumstances and rights raised had been appropriately considered.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants had not established that the decision affirming the deportation order was fundamentally flawed. It did not set aside the order or determine a fresh deportation decision.