The High Court has refused an application to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision not to revoke a deportation order against a Georgian man who has two Irish citizen daughters.
Mr Justice Hedigan gave judgment on 26 November 2008. The applicants were the man and his younger daughter, identified in the judgment as R., acting through her father and next friend. They challenged the Minister’s decision of 10 October 2008, which affirmed the deportation order.
The man had arrived in Ireland in 2003 and applied for asylum. After his claim was rejected, a deportation order was made in January 2006. He did not report as directed and was treated as an evader. He was apprehended in Waterford in August 2008 and detained pending deportation. After the Minister affirmed the order, he was released conditionally. The High Court refused an interim injunction, and he was deported on 24 October 2008, first to the UK and then to Georgia.
In September 2008, the applicants asked the Minister to revoke the order, citing changed circumstances including the births of the man’s two Irish citizen daughters and his contact with them. Their submissions included letters from the mothers, references, and guardianship-related documents. The children lived with their mothers and stepfathers; the man was no longer in a relationship with either mother.
The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to weigh the children’s constitutional and family rights, provide a substantial reason for deportation, properly assess the father’s role in their lives, or consider the IBC/05 scheme. The Minister maintained that the application had been assessed reasonably and that the scheme did not apply to the man.
The judge found that the departmental analysis had considered the representations and balanced the family rights of the applicants against the State’s immigration interests. He also held that the Minister had given a substantial reason associated with the common good, including the man’s evasion of the deportation order and illegal work. The court read the assessment of his role in the children’s lives as part of the decision as a whole, rather than in isolation. It rejected the IBC/05 argument, finding no requirement to consider an administrative scheme that did not apply to him.
The court concluded that the Minister had not erred in refusing to revoke the deportation order and refused the relief sought. The judgment reviewed the lawfulness of that refusal; the man had already been deported.