A.Z. & ors v the Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:A.Z., M.Z. and C.Z. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend M.Z.)
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2024] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Jul 2024
Judge:Woulfe, S. Dunne, E. Hogan, G. Collins, M. Donnelly, A.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Best interests of the child, Child, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family (Nuclear), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Illegal Stay, Return
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5e689789-56c6-481a-b63b-b74248a1d14b/2024_IESC_35_(Woulfe%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:In Re JJ [2020] IESC 1, Oguekwe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IESC 25, [2008]

Facts: A.Z. was an Albanian national who arrived to Ireland irregularly in 1995 and worked without a work permit for a number of years using an alias. He met M.Z., an Irish citizen, in 2005, and they had a child, C.Z., in 2007. A.Z. is the primary caregiver for his son, C.Z., who has a number of additional needs relating … Read More

Principles:Article 42A.1 of the Irish Constitution requires that the Minister have regard to the child’s best interests as a primary consideration in the context of a parent’s deportation order and must therefore engage with the child’s constitutional rights. Thus, in the context of the proportionality exercise conducted when deciding deportation cases, the Minister must give primary consideration to a child’s best interests when weighing the various relevant factors.
Go Back

E.M. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2024
Judge:Dunne, E.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Deportation, Deportation Order, Employee, Employment, Marriage of Convenience
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2bd0e600-cc08-45e4-b2cc-a8e58bf44ca4/2024_IESC_3.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:MAH v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 302, ANA v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 589, Huang v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 630, and Talukder v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 835. P.N.S. v. Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 11

Facts: E.M., a Pakistani national, arrived in Ireland in 2011 and applied for asylum. This application was refused. In 2012, he was issued with a deportation order. That same year, the appellant married an EU national resident in Ireland and he was granted a residence permission on this basis. When seeking to renew this permission in 2017, the Minister refused … Read More

Principles:In the process of considering a whether to issue a deportation order, the Minister must consider a person’s employment prospects separately to whether or not the individual has a permission to reside in the State. A refusal to grant relief in the context of asylum and immigration cases should be used sparingly and with caution.
Go Back

Odum & ors v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2)

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:14 Nov 2023
Judge:O’Donnell, D.; Charleton P.; Baker M.; Woulfe S.; Hogan G.; Murray B.; Collins M.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Illegal Stay, Regularisation
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/6865a1e3-8b82-44cf-83f7-5e2b97e6b881/6b637c5d-275f-4e21-9aff-0dac512ebd94/2023_IESC_26.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. Odum, a Nigerian national, arrived to Ireland irregularly in November 2007. He married EA, also a Nigerian national in December 2007, however, the marriage was not registered and therefore was not considered lawful. They went on to have three children. The couple separated in 2014. In that same year, Mr. Odum applied for residency, but this application refused … Read More

Principles:There are a number of circumstances in which a non-citizen who can establish a sufficient connection to the State is the same as a citizen, and where, therefore, the Article 40.1 guarantee of equality as human persons before the law, entitles them to rely on the same rights as a citizen would have. Non-citizen children, may in this regard, be entitled to the rights of the care and company of their parent. However, where the parent is in a precarious situation in the State, exceptional circumstances would be necessary to invalidate a deportation order.
Go Back

M.K. (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


M.K. (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 48
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge:MacMenamin, J., Baker, M., Hogan, G., O’Donnell, D., O’Malley, I.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Minor (Unaccompanied)
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b7644178-2667-49b6-9267-a026008e7947/2022_IESC_48_(Mac%20Menamin%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellant, MK, was a national of Albania and arrived in Ireland in 2016 as an unaccompanied minor. He lived with a foster family and was enrolled in school in Dublin. He applied for international protection in 2017 with the assistance of Tusla, and in 2018, he was granted permission to enter the labour market. He left school and … Read More

Principles:Exceptional circumstances do not need to be established for Article 8(1) ECHR rights to be engaged. A low threshold applies to engaging Article 8(1) rights. Once engaged, the decision-maker must then conduct a proportionality assessment under Article 8(2) ECHR as to whether the interference with a person’s Article 8 rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued.
Go Back

A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

admin


A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review /Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Jul 2022
Judge:MacMenamin J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Appeal, Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Deportation Order, Final Decision
Country of Origin:Georgia, Brazil
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/f081dc1c-a3d2-4466-98aa-d2b12e68774a/0df6da0b-dc38-4b7b-9784-c3e79fe99faf/2022_IESC_35_McMenamin%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. A, from Georgia, and Ms. B, from Brazil, both separately applied for international protection in Ireland. It was recommended that their applications be refused under section 39(3)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 and reports were issued to the Minister under section 40 of the 2015 Act recommending the refusal of their applications. Neither appellant brought an appeal … Read More

Principles:The IPAT acted ultra vires in not allowing persons who had received a negative first instance decision to apply for an extension of time to appeal. Persons who are no longer considered applicants may apply to extend the time to appeal a decision issued under section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015.
Go Back

M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor

admin


M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 345
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:13 May 2022
Judge:Ferriter J.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Burden of Proof, Country of Origin, Deportation Order, Persecution, Refugee (Convention)
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/d67b3aa8-41b1-495e-bdf7-8a8f182e1cec/0473cf81-9c10-40c0-b260-8c64e64cd1bd/2022_IEHC_345.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant was a member of the Berber Amazigh people, an ethnic minority in Algeria and supported the ideals of the Berber separatist MAK movement. He travelled to the UK on a short-term visa in 2013 and remained there after its expiry. In 2018, he travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection. The IPO recommended that he not … Read More

Principles:When refusing an application under section 28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015, the core elements of the provision should be assessed. Albeit obiter, Ferriter J stated that the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in HJ (Iran) can be applied to Convention grounds other than those that relate to sexual orientation and HJ (Iran) should be applied carefully to the facts of the case when remitted for fresh consideration.
Go Back

H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IEHC 360, [2021] IESC 0032
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:11 May 2021
Judge:Charleton P.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Member, Free Movement, Illegal Stay, Minor, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/890a1003-8ef2-425c-935a-40d96c3b1c33/c6bf103b-a935-4894-b4d8-b9b773ba936f/2021_IESC_32.pdf/pdf

Facts: MIH and her daughter, SIH, are Pakistani nationals. They arrived in Ireland in 2014 with MIH’s brother, a British citizen and applied for EU1 Residence Cards. These applications were refused. At that time, the Minister issued notifications proposing to deport the applicants pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. However, it was not until 18 … Read More

Principles:Delay in issuing a deportation order, in and of itself, cannot create rights to remain in the State where otherwise non-nationals have no entitlement to residence.
Go Back

MAH v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 302
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Apr 2021
Judge:Burns T
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin Information, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-), Refugee
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62760bea-78ce-44be-a54a-e592ecbb8bd0/2020_IEHC_302.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Somali national who had studied medicine in Ukraine. Upon completion of her studies, she returned to Somalia where she worked as a junior doctor. During this time, the applicant was subjected to threats from a fundamentalist group and so she fled to Ukraine through renewing her student visa. Upon the expiry of her student visa, … Read More

Principles:In making a deportation order, the Minister for Justice was obliged to consider whether country of origin information was capable of rebutting of the presumption that another Member State upholds fundamental rights. The Minister for Justice was not entitled to dismiss an applicant’ s employment prospects on the basis that she did not hold a work permit or immigration permission.
Go Back

Gorry, Ford and ABM v Minister for Justice

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 280, 281 and 282
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review / Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Immigration, Non-EU National, Residence, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c53548e-e3f1-46bd-9973-8b3f13d31f52/2017_IECA_280_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In each of these cases, one of the applicants was an Irish citizen and was married to the other applicant who is a foreign national. The marriages in question either took place in Ireland or Nigeria, and all three were recognised by the Minister as lawful marriages. Each application for judicial review sought an order of certiorari of an … Read More

Principles:

The Minister did not consider the constitutional rights of the applicants in accordance with law, in particular

  1. the guarantee given by the State in Art.41.1.2° to protect the family in its constitution and authority;
  2. a recognition that the applicants in each case were a family, a fundamental unit group of society possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights which rights included a right to cohabit which was also an individual right of the citizen spouse which the State must, as far as practicable, defend and vindicate (Art.41.1 and Art.40.3.1°);
  3. a recognition that the decision that the family should live in Ireland was a decision which they had the right to take and which the State had guaranteed in Art.41.1 to protect; and
  4. a recognition of the right of the Irish citizen to live at all times in Ireland as part of what Art.2 refers to as the “birth right . . . to be part of the Irish Nation” and the absence of any right of the State (absent international obligations which do not apply) to limit that right.

Go Back

KRA v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 284
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Ryan S.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Immigration, Non-national
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7b2278a6-5194-4c63-bc6d-24315b843318/2017_IECA_284_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: Ms KRA, the first named applicant, was born in Nigeria in 1975. She married there and had three children. In early 2008, she came alone to Ireland while pregnant and sought asylum. Her baby, the second named applicant, BMA, was born four days later on 14 March 2008. The asylum application was rejected and in March 2009, Ms KRA … Read More

Principles:

Article 42A of the Constitution did not amount to a bar to the deportation of a non-citizen child who was undergoing primary education in the State. The circumstances of the mother and child in this case did not require separate and individual consideration by the Minister. The Minister was not obliged to make a comparison between the educational opportunities in Ireland and Nigeria before making a decision on whether to revoke the deportation order. 

Go Back

YY v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2017] IESC 61
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2017
Judge:O’Donnell D.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/dca55e04-1f20-4b13-9fe3-10949b991711/2017_IESC_61_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national who was granted refugee status in Ireland on 15 July 1997 on the basis of false documentation. He was granted travel documentation on 10 October 2000, which allowed him to leave Ireland and commit multiple offences abroad. The applicant was convicted of a number of terrorism related offences in France and sentenced to … Read More

Principles:

The Minister is obliged to consider the principle of non-refoulement under s.5 of the Refugee Act 1996, as informed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when deciding  whether an individual can be deported  under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The test to be applied was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and if so a person could not be surrendered, deported or expelled to such a country.  The guarantee under article 3 was absolute and applied in all circumstances. Accordingly, although the consequence of refusing deportation or expulsion was that the applicant would remain within the contracting state, it was irrelevant that there might be compelling national security reasons for expulsion from the state.

While the Minister was not required to notify the applicant of any mainstream country of origin information relied on in the decision, obscure material that was going to materially change the picture appearing from the basic and universal material should however be notified.

Go Back

WS v Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 128
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Feb 2017
Judge:O'Regan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student, Visa
Country of Origin:Malaysia
URL:http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/36BBA683D8E20E90802580F0005A4B79
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:  The applicant was a Malaysian citizen who arrived initially in Ireland in 2007 with his wife. They had secured a visitors’ permission to remain for 90 days, however they outstayed this period by approximately 2 years when they returned to Malaysia in 2009. In July 2009 the applicant secured a 1 year valid student visa and his wife and … Read More

Principles:

The conditions attached to a student visa did not preclude such a person from being considered to be a settled migrant for the period for which they have permission.

Go Back

ABM v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 479
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Immigration
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/7508e6fd24a71320802580110052cf6c?OpenDocument
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts:  The applicants were a married couple; the husband was a failed asylum seeker in respect of whom a deportation order was made in June 2008. The wife became an Irish citizen, and in January 2014 they applied for revocation of the deportation order. That application was refused in July 2015 and the husband was deported in September 2015. The … Read More

Principles:

The decision in ABM v Minister for Justice creates uncertainty as to whether an Irish citizen has a prima facie right to reside in the State with his or her non-Irish citizen spouse. The decisions in ABM and Gorry are under appeal.

Go Back

IRM v Minister for Justice and Equality (No.2)

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 478
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/14935597-d3bd-4551-9101-067d8a435de0/2016_IEHC_478_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In IRM (No.2) the High Court considered the obligation on the Minister to consider the rights of an unborn child when deciding whether to revoke a deportation order in respect of the father of the child. The applicant was a Nigerian citizen who was refused asylum; a deportation order was subsequently issued but he remained unlawfully in the State. … Read More

Principles:

The decision in IRM establishes that the prospective legal rights and (where raised in submissions) interests that a child will acquire on birth are matters that the Minister must consider when an application is made under s.3(11) by reference to an unborn child.

Go Back

STE v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 379
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Jun 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration
Country of Origin:Cameroon/Morocco
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e0aff845-0ff7-4e3d-8dd1-511b88a4f82c/2016_IEHC_379_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In STE v Minister for Justice and Equality the High Court considered whether the Minister for Justice, when considering whether to deport a group of family members, is entitled to make a deportation order against one family member while granting leave to remain to others, resulting in the separation of the family. The first named applicant arrived in the … Read More

Principles:

The decision of the High Court in STE (No.1) establishes that the Minister must consider the collective rights of a family when deciding whether to deport one of the members of the family, when all members of the family have an equally precarious immigration status, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. It is unlawful to select between two equally precarious parties to a relationship and decide that one can stay and the other must leave, without compelling justification, in circumstances where this would actively break up the family by State action.

Go Back

KRA v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 289
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 May 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/eea82660-9980-4e8b-a9a0-0aede42bc405/2016_IEHC_289_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In KRA v Minister for Justice the applicants were a family of Nigerian citizens in respect of whom deportation orders were made by the Minister. They subsequently sought revocation of the deportation orders on the basis that the deportation of their child to Nigeria would violate the child’s right to education having regard to inadequate educational system in Nigeria. … Read More

Principles:

The decision in KRA v Minister for Justice and Equality establishes that the Minister is not prohibited from deporting a non-citizen child to a country with an inadequate education system.

Go Back

AW v Minister for Justice (No.2)

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 111
Nature of Proceedings:Judical review
Judgment Date/s:15 Feb 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ed4176d9-0c5f-43ff-b210-a1e1c6c64f78/2016_IEHC_111_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In AW v Minister for Justice (No.2) the applicant was a failed asylum seeker from Democratic Republic of Congo who challenged the Minister’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against her. The applicant claimed that she would be at risk of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment if she was deported to DRC and that her deportation was therefore in … Read More

Principles:

The decision in AW v Minister for Justice (No.2) clarifies the threshold to be applied by the Minister in assessing whether deportation of a person would be in breach of the principle of non-refoulement by specifying a minimum level of gravity required for the alleged breach.

Go Back

WT and Others v Minister for Justice and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 73
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2015
Judge:Hardiman, MacMenamin, Laffoy, Dunne and Charleton JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
URL:https://www.courts.ie/search/judgments/%22%20type%3AJudgment%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_radio.title%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_NeutralCitation.%5B2015%5D%20IESC%2073%22
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellants were Nigerian nationals who were subject to deportation orders which had not been signed personally by the Minister for Justice. They contended that that breached the Immigration Act 1999 which, they said, required the Minister to make such orders personally. The High Court held, by reference to the Carltona principle, pursuant to which acts of ministerial officials … Read More

Principles:

In deciding whether or not the Carltona principle is applicable to a particular decision-making function, a court must analyse carefully the scope of the administrative decision-making power in the context of the relevant statute. The intention of the Oireachtas in any given case is expressed in the statute and to exclude the Carltona principle requires very clear words. It may be disapplied only where the Oireachtas clearly intends or implies in the legislation in question that the decision-maker alone, should make the decision.

Deportation orders do not have to be signed personally by the Minister for Justice and the Carltona principle applies accordingly to the power of making them under s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.

Go Back

CI and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and Attorney General
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 192
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2015
Judge:Ryan P, Finlay Geoghegan and Peart JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/232b3f0c-e95c-4f8c-a41f-268cc2dda17f/2015_IECA_192_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were citizens of Nigeria. The first applicant was the mother of the second, third and fourth named applicants. She applied unsuccessfully for asylum in Ireland in 2005, including the second and third applicants in her claim. Deportation orders were subsequently made against them by the Minister for Justice. The fourth applicant was born in the State. Application … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether or not deportation of a non Irish national non-settled migrant and is compatible with article 8 ECHR, the Minister for Justice is entitled to adopt the position that the proposed deportation potentially constitutes an interference with the right to private life within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR. When assessing the relevant consequence of deportation for the purpose of determining whether or not the interference will have consequences of such gravity as to engage the operation of Article 8 ECHR, something more than a technical or inconsequential interference is required. This will depend on the individual facts and circumstances of a given case. When considering the gravity of the consequences of deportation on the right to respect for private life of an individual who has never been permitted to reside in the host State, save pending a decision on an asylum claim, it is permissible to take into account that it has been a private life consisting of relationships, including educational and social ties, which have been formed at a time when the right of the individual to remain in the State was precarious. It will require wholly exceptional circumstances to engage the operation of article 8 ECHR in relation to a proposal to deport such a person.

Go Back

Dos Santos and Others v Minister for Justice and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 210
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2015
Judge:Ryan P., Finlay Geoghegan and Peart JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Minor
Country of Origin:Brazil
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/98a68780-969f-4cb6-846a-1f3b248d555d/2015_IECA_210_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellants were all members of a Brazilian family who arrived in Ireland at various dates between 2002 and 2007. The father had arrived in Ireland lawfully on a work permit in 2002. It expired in 2003. Nevertheless he remained in the State, continued initially to work and paid all appropriate taxes without the relevant immigration permission. His unlawful … Read More

Principles:

Non citizens of the State do not have a personal right within the meaning of Article 40.3 of the Constitution to remain in the State and/or participate in community life in the State.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not part of Irish domestic law. Section 3(6)(a) of the Immigration Act 1999, which obliged the Minister for Justice to take account of an applicant’s age when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order against him or her, did not require him, when dealing with a minor applicant, to treat as a primary consideration the best interests of that child or, alternatively, to decide expressly whether deportation would be consistent with its best interests.

The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights has no applicability to the making of deportation orders.

The interference caused by deportation of non-settled migrants with the right to respect for their private life under article 8 ECHR does not have consequences of such gravity potentially to engage the article’s operation.

Go Back