The High Court refused Q. L.’s application challenging the procedure used to make a deportation order against him, holding that the Immigration Act 1999 gave him a sufficient opportunity to make representations before the Minister decided whether to deport him.
In a judgment delivered on 1 October 2014, Mr Justice Barr found that the absence of a period between rejection of Q. L.’s representations and the making of the order did not unlawfully interfere with his right to make them. The court therefore refused the reliefs sought. It did not decide whether Q. L. should be permitted to remain in Ireland on human rights grounds; the judgment said that question was for the Minister.
Q. L., a Chinese citizen, had lived in Ireland since arriving in 2001. He and his wife, A. L., ran a Chinese restaurant in Cork, and their daughter was being raised by her grandparents in China. Q. L. had no current permission to remain. After a Garda inspection, he received notice in December 2012 that the Minister proposed to deport him. He made written representations, including claims based on family and private life, and the Minister made a deportation order on 10 May 2013.
Q. L. argued that the law should allow time after the rejection of representations for a person to leave voluntarily before a deportation order was made. He said the existing procedure put people to a choice between making a human rights case and risking an order, or leaving without having that case considered. He also challenged the Minister’s consideration of information about employment at the restaurant.
The respondents argued that the order would not separate Q. L. from his family, as his wife was also subject to a deportation order and their daughter lived in China. They said the statutory process was adequate and that the employment information did not establish that required returns or contributions had been made.
Justice Barr held that a person affected by a ministerial decision is entitled to fair procedures, including an opportunity to make representations. Q. L. had that opportunity under the section 3 process, and his submissions were considered before the order was made. Although the lack of a gap could deter some people from making representations, the judge held that it did not breach constitutional or Convention rights.
The judge also considered the disputed employment information. The material before the court did not resolve whether returns or contributions had been made, and any error was not sufficiently serious or material to invalidate the order. The application was refused.