The High Court refused F.O. leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order, rejecting her argument that the Minister for Justice should have considered medical and family information that was provided after the order was made. The court also refused an extension of time and an injunction against deportation.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2013, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said the new information had not been given to the Minister before the deportation order was made on 17 January. F.O.’s solicitors wrote on 14 February seeking revocation of the order and describing her history of tuberculosis and diabetes, recent surgery to remove a spinal tumour, and family connections in Ireland. The court noted that the solicitors’ letter was an application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
The Repatriation Unit replied that the information had been forwarded for consideration but that the application did not suspend the deportation order. It advised F.O. to continue meeting presentation requirements set by the Garda National Immigration Bureau. The court said the Minister had no obligation to seek representations where none had been made, and that the section 3(11) process was the proper route for putting new information before the Minister after an order was made.
The judge distinguished an earlier case involving an unborn child whose existence had been brought to the Minister’s attention before a decision on revocation. Here, the new circumstances were not notified before the deportation order. The court said that information learned only after a decision could not invalidate it, though it could be a proper reason to seek revocation.
A further challenge concerned a 31 January notice stating that representations had been received on F.O.’s behalf. The judge said this was an error, but it was benign because F.O. and her solicitors knew no representations had been made. He refused an application to amend the challenge to include that ground, and said that even if allowed it would not justify leave.
The court also refused to extend the statutory 14-day deadline for challenging the order. It found no good and sufficient reason for the delay, noting that the solicitors had been told the revocation request did not suspend deportation and that the earlier plenary proceedings did not explain why a judicial review challenge had not been brought sooner. As leave was refused, the dependent injunction application also failed.