or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing to revoke deportation order made against a Nigerian national, on the grounds that: the assessment of her family rights was not unlawful, the decision did not lack clarity, the decision to deport was not disproportionate and, in light of her consistent efforts to undermine the immigration law of the State through misleading the Minister and evasion of the deportation order it would not be in the interests of justice to afford discretionary relief.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice and Equality affirming decision to deport her – refused asylum – deportation order made - failed to present as required and evaded the deportation order for a number of years - sought residency on the basis of alleged dependency on her niece – denied being subject of a deportation order – form did not contain relevant information - left blank the question as to date of arrival in the State – different address given - additional evidence was sought – application refused - did not request a review of that refusal or challenge it - application seeking permission to remain - Department then realised that there was a deportation order already in existence - representations would be considered as a revocation application – application to revoke refused - unsettled migrant - well-established that deportation breaches art. 8 in the case of unsettled migrants only in exceptional circumstances – limited grounds to challenge decision not to revoke a deportation order – Challenged the assessment of her family rights - Minister’s decision must be viewed in the context of the point that exceptional circumstances are required to show a breach of art. 8 in the case of unsettled migrants and that has not been demonstrated here - Alleged that the decision is lacking in clarity as to the reasoning – decision does not lack clarity - deportation order is disproportionate due to the failure to strike a fair balance when assessing the relative weight of the competing factors and including the constitutional rights of her Irish citizen family members - balancing of the various factors involved is primarily a matter for the Minister and the result of that exercise is not manifestly disproportionate in the present case having regard to all the circumstances – in light of her consistent efforts to undermine the immigration law of the State through misleading the Minister and evasion of the deportation order it would not be in the interests of justice to afford discretionary relief – judicial review refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.