The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision to affirm a deportation order against R.O., a Nigerian national and failed asylum seeker. The court found the decision to refuse revocation under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 was not vitiated on the grounds advanced. The deportation order itself was not challenged in these proceedings.
R.O.’s partner, M.I., and three children joined the case. K.I. is an Irish citizen and M.I.’s child from an earlier relationship; R.O. is not his natural father. The other two children, A.A.O. and A.O., are R.O. and M.I.’s children, born in Ireland, but are not Irish citizens. The judgment preserves their initials.
R.O.’s asylum claim was rejected on credibility grounds in 2009, and a deportation order was made in 2010. After the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Zambrano decision, his representatives asked the Minister to reconsider, asserting that he was the father of three Irish citizen children. The High Court said that claim was incorrect. It found that the Minister nevertheless treated the correspondence as a section 3(11) revocation application and considered the family’s circumstances, including their relationships, the children’s residence and schooling, and K.I.’s eczema.
The court held that Zambrano did not prevent deportation: R.O. was not K.I.’s father, the other children were not EU citizens, and K.I. could remain in Ireland with his mother and siblings. It also held that the EU Charter did not apply because the deportation was under domestic law, not an implementation of EU law.
On the family’s constitutional and Article 8 rights, the judge accepted that the family had established “de facto” family life and that deportation would disrupt it. The Minister was required to consider the children’s interests and the effects of separation alongside the state’s interest in immigration control. The court found that the Minister had fairly considered the relationships and the limited information supplied about the children. It said the decision could take account of the family’s ability to live in Nigeria and R.O.’s immigration history.
The applicants also challenged the constitutionality and Convention compatibility of the relevant statutory provisions. Following an earlier High Court decision, the judge rejected those grounds. The court refused the application for judicial review. An injunction preventing removal had been granted earlier in the proceedings; the judgment does not state a separate order lifting it.