The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a deportation order against a Nigerian man, rejecting arguments that the order breached the family’s rights or that he should have been offered a fresh chance to leave voluntarily after his application to remain was refused.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 30 November 2007, concerned the man and two younger siblings born in Ireland, who sued through their mother. Their parents had been granted permission to remain in Ireland on the basis of parentage of an Irish-born child.
The man arrived at Dún Laoghaire in April 2006 without documents and sought asylum after being refused leave to land. His asylum claim and appeal were unsuccessful. The Minister notified him of a proposed deportation order and gave him the option to make representations seeking temporary leave to remain. He chose that option. After the application was refused, a deportation order was made and served in August 2006.
The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider the effect of requiring the man to remain outside Ireland on his siblings and other family members. They also submitted that the order was disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution, and that he should have been given another opportunity to leave voluntarily or consent to deportation after his application failed.
The judge found that the Minister had the family circumstances before him and could not have been unaware that deportation would affect the family. She said it was not necessary for the Minister to expressly state that he had considered the impact or refer specifically to Article 8. The challenge therefore did not succeed on the claim that relevant family circumstances had been overlooked.
On Article 8, the court found that the evidence did not establish family life between the adult applicant, his parents and younger siblings within the Convention’s meaning. He had lived apart from his parents for several years, and the court found no evidence of financial or other dependency beyond ordinary emotional ties. It also held that his short stay in Ireland following unlawful entry did not amount to State interference with family life. In any event, the court said the case was not among the exceptional cases in which immigration control would be disproportionate.
The court also rejected the argument that the Minister had to provide fresh options after refusing leave to remain. The man had been told in advance that choosing to make representations could result in a deportation order without a further option to leave voluntarily or consent. The court said there was no obligation under the relevant statutory procedure to offer new options. The applicants were not entitled to succeed in the application.