By Niamh Ellis
The High Court has upheld a deportation order against a Nigerian father living with his wife and four children in Ireland after finding that his sexual assault conviction provided a substantial reason for his removal.
M.E., whose three youngest named children in the proceedings included Irish citizens, arrived in Ireland in July 2003. He was initially refused leave to land and later unsuccessfully sought asylum. In 2005 he received two years' permission to remain under the IBC/05 scheme because he was the father of Irish-born children.
His application to renew that permission was refused after he was convicted in February 2007 of sexually assaulting a woman. He received an 18-month prison sentence and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years. He served 13 months and had no further conviction by the time of the High Court case.
The Minister later made a deportation order against him in August 2009.
M.E., his wife E.E. and three of their children challenged that decision. They argued that deportation disproportionately interfered with their constitutional family rights and their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice McDermott found that the Minister's examination had addressed the family's circumstances in detail. It considered the children's ages and citizenship, M.E.'s relationship with them, his wife's residency, his efforts to integrate and find work, conditions in Nigeria and the consequences of separating the family.
The court also noted that the deportation order applied only to M.E. His wife had permission to remain in Ireland and the family had decided that she and the children would stay if he were deported.
The judge held that the sexual assault conviction was a serious matter which the Minister was entitled to weigh against the family's rights when considering the prevention of disorder and crime.
The court stressed that deportation was an immigration decision, not an additional criminal sentence. It found that the Minister had followed the required principles and that the applicants had not established that the decision was irrational, unreasonable or disproportionate.
The judicial review challenge was therefore dismissed.