The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order, finding she had not demonstrated substantial grounds to challenge the Minister for Justice and Equality’s assessment of her private life rights.
In a judgment delivered on 23 February 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan considered an application under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended. The applicant sought an order quashing a deportation order dated 5 December 2016. The underlying decision was dated 14 November and approved on 5 December.
The applicant argued that the Minister wrongly concluded the proposed deportation would not interfere with her private life rights with sufficient gravity to engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She said the Minister should have carried out a proportionality assessment under Article 8(2). Her counsel also argued that information in an application for permission to remain, submitted in December 2015 on a form used in deportation cases, had to be taken into account.
The court rejected the argument that choosing that form created an additional obligation for the Minister. However, it found that the Minister’s consideration before making the order had in fact taken account of the applicant’s earlier representations.
The judgment records that the applicant had received an October 2016 letter notifying her of the proposal to deport her and inviting submissions, but made none in response. The Minister’s assessment referred to matters including the applicant appearing to be in the process of undertaking a marriage of convenience before being approached by An Garda Síochána; her failure to attend the last course for which she had student permission; 65 per cent attendance at the preceding course; and work exceeding the 20 hours per week permitted under her student conditions. The judgment does not make a separate finding on those matters.
The court considered Court of Appeal authority on settled migrants and Article 8, including the potential for a decision affecting a person lawfully resident for several years to engage private or family life rights. It concluded that the Minister had assessed the applicant’s private life rights under the relevant principles and that the conclusion that the deportation would not be sufficiently grave to engage Article 8 was rational and reasonable.
The court refused leave because the applicant had not established the substantial grounds required by the legislation. The ruling determined whether she could bring the judicial review challenge; it did not itself quash the deportation order.