The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order made against C.A., finding no substantial ground to argue that the Minister’s decision was invalid or should be quashed. The ruling did not authorise the child’s removal under that order: the judge found there was no deportation order in force for him.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Patrick J. McCarthy on 23 November 2007, concerned a deportation order made on 23 November 2005. C.A. and her minor son sought to challenge it and asked for orders preventing their deportation, along with declarations concerning their rights. The court was considering whether there were substantial grounds for judicial review, not deciding a full judicial review hearing.
C.A. had arrived in Ireland in February 2005 and applied for asylum. Her application was refused, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected her appeal in June 2005. The Minister later considered written representations, including material about the child’s birth in Ireland, and made the deportation order against C.A.
In December 2005, C.A. was taken from Cork to Dublin Airport with a view to deportation to Nigeria. She said Gardaí had detained her, verbally abused her and brought her son from a hostel where he was being cared for by a friend. She was released before leaving Ireland after interim court relief was obtained. The judge said these events and allegations were not contradicted, but did not rule on whether her arrest was lawful.
The judge held that, without a deportation order covering the child, he could not be removed from Ireland under the Immigration Act on the basis of C.A.’s order. He said C.A. could take her son with her if deported and that the Minister was entitled to proceed on the basis that she would do so. The court did not decide whether a deportation order could lawfully be made against the child.
On the challenge to C.A.’s order, the judge concluded that the Minister had considered the relevant representations and statutory factors, including the claims concerning risk on return and the child’s circumstances. He rejected the arguments that the decision breached the European Convention on Human Rights or procedural fairness, and found no legal error, irrationality or breach of natural justice warranting judicial review.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review and declaratory relief, as well as prohibition or declaration. It discharged the restraint on deportation, leaving the time, place and manner of any deportation of C.A. to the Minister. The judgment said the child’s deportation had not arisen as a fact.