The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian woman’s challenge to a decision refusing to revoke a deportation order made against her, finding no basis to quash the Minister’s decision. The court also said it would have refused relief on discretionary grounds, even if she had established a legal point.
In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the case concerned a deemed application to revoke the order, or alternatively a decision rejecting an application to remain. The proceedings sought certiorari to quash the decision affirming the deportation order. The court had granted leave for judicial review in November 2018, but dismissed the application after considering the parties’ submissions.
The judgment says the applicant, born in 1965, claimed to have arrived in Ireland in November 2007. Her asylum and subsidiary protection applications were rejected, and a deportation order was made in 2009. In 2015, she applied for residence based on alleged dependency on her German-citizen niece. The application form denied that she was subject to a deportation order. The Minister refused that residence application in 2016; the applicant did not seek a review or otherwise challenge the refusal.
The Department later invited representations on permission to remain. After discovering the existing deportation order, it advised in July 2018 that the invitation had been issued in error and that the representations would be treated as an application to revoke the order. That application was refused in September 2018.
The applicant argued that the Minister wrongly treated her brother’s ability to meet his parental responsibilities as a precondition to finding that her involvement with his family amounted to de facto family life. The judge rejected that reading, saying the decision assessed the facts, including the limited information provided about living and domestic arrangements. He said exceptional circumstances are required for deportation to breach Article 8 rights in the case of an unsettled migrant, and that such circumstances had not been demonstrated.
The court also rejected arguments that the Minister’s reasoning lacked clarity and that the decision was disproportionate because of the balance struck between competing factors, including the constitutional rights of Irish family members. The judge said the balancing was primarily for the Minister and was not manifestly disproportionate in the circumstances.
Separately, the judge said the applicant’s misleading of the Minister and evasion of the deportation order meant it would not be in the interests of justice to grant discretionary relief. The application was dismissed.