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

A.S.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


ASA v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge: MacMenamin J.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Carltona Principle, Deportation, Leave to Remain, Protection (International), Return
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/b76af74a-fd59-4100-9a63-31b836b1eeed/de05c437-f17e-47ad-a7d9-893981bb5f42/2022_IESC_49.pdf/pdf

 Facts: The appellant was a national of Nigeria. He submitted an application for international protection in 2016, which was unsuccessful. The appellant was informed that an International Protection Officer (IPO) had recommended he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection pursuant to section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015. He was subsequently informed that the Minister for Justice … Read More

Principles:There is no conflict of roles or functions exists between an international protection officer in their role in the international protection procedure, and an officer of the Minister in their role in permission to remain decisions under section 49 of the 2015 Act.
Go Back

T.P. v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


T.P. v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2021] IECA 50
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:22 Feb 2021
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:International protection, Residence
Keywords:Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Final Decision, Leave to Remain
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/c7b41c59-f483-4f5b-a629-77963774b876/0a282be6-4bdd-4b8a-a990-e0dac15eae1a/2021_IECA_50%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf

Facts: The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived in Ireland in February 2013. He applied for international protection, but this application was unsuccessful. In October 2016, the appellant applied for leave to remain pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. He had been in a relationship with his partner, a Zimbabwean national, since 2013. His partner’s application … Read More

Principles:The threshold for substantial grounds for judicial review of a refusal of an application for leave to remain was met where the Minister was presented with a person’s de facto family situation and the prospect that their de facto family members were likely to be granted leave to remain were not considered in the requisite weighing exercise undertaken when deciding to issue a deportation order.
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

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

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 241
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Apr 2017
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cb16d5cf-2121-4204-954c-7e3966b4afde/2017_IEHC_241_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicants were students from Mauritius who entered the State on student permissions in 2008 which were renewed for over four years but then expired and the applicants thereafter remained in the State without permission. The Minister made deportation orders against them which rejected their assertions that they had acquired private life rights in the State by reason of … Read More

Principles:

Non-nationals who are resident in the State on student permissions should not be regarded as settled migrants.

Go Back

Bakare v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 292
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Oct 2016
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Family Life (Right to), Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/be94c6e9-50fc-42ee-902d-0c3d2a1b9fe1/2016_IECA_292_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In Bakare v Minister for Justice the Court of Appeal considered the applicability of the Zambrano case in situations where it is proposed to deport only one parent of an Irish citizen child. The applicant was a Nigerian citizen who arrived in the State in February 2002 when he applied for asylum on grounds of his ethnicity and his … Read More

Principles:

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Bakare confirmed that Zambrano is only applicable in cases where the denial of residency or similar rights to one or both third country nationals who are the parents of EU citizen children is likely to bring about a situation where those children are in practice compelled to leave the territory of the Union. The rule in Zambrano does not apply to decisions to deport one parent of an Irish citizen child where the other parent is residing in Ireland and there is no appreciable risk that the deportation of one parent will force the child to leave.

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

Chigaru and Others v Minister for Justice and Others.

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 167
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2015
Judge:Kelly, Irvine and Hogan JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Malawi
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/078d46e5-2d49-4cf1-9ca0-09f4535fb87e/2015_IECA_167_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were a father, a mother and their two children. They were all nationals of Malawi who unsuccessfully sought asylum and subsidiary protection in Ireland, following which deportation orders were made against them in 2011. They unsuccessfully sought leave from the High Court to challenge the orders and appealed its decision, following which they evaded deportation, with the … Read More

Principles:

Where a family of non Irish-nationals, comprising parents and children of tender years, who are subject to deportation orders have evaded deportation, the parents’ conduct cannot be considered in isolation from their children, who are blameless in respect of their parents’ conduct. The balance of convenience may not favour enjoining the parents’ deportation but it will favour enjoining their children’s deportation. Under Articles 41, 42 and 42A of the Constitution, the children are entitled to the company and care of their parents and, assuming the parents are properly caring for their children, it is likely that it will be necessary to enjoin their deportation too.

Go Back

PO and Another v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 64
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:16 Jul 2015
Judge:MacMenamin, Laffoy and Charleton JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Country of Origin Information, Deportation, Deportation Order, Minor
Country of Origin:Nigeria
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%2064%22
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellants were a mother and her nine year old son. Both of them were Nigerian nationals, although the son had been born in Ireland. They both applied unsuccessfully for refugee status, after which proposals to make deportation orders issued to them. They did not make representations for leave to remain and the Minister for Justice decided to make … Read More

Principles:

The Minister for Justice is entitled to source country of origin information when assessing a request to revoke a deportation order and does not necessarily have to bring it to the applicant’s attention, e.g. where it is in the public domain.

The Minister does not need to prepare guidelines for dealing with revocation requests from non-nationals born in Ireland. Each case should be assessed on its own merits.

Non Irish nationals who create uncertainty as to their status within a Contracting State, by claiming asylum rights that are unfounded, cannot rely on mere presence to invoke rights under article 8 ECHR. When considering the interaction of the two paragraphs of article 8 ECHR, a wide margin of appreciation is afforded to decision-makers in deciding whether or not to deport non Irish-nationals. The rights of children are, save for extraordinary circumstances, dependent upon the approach of the parent who made claims on those children’s behalf.

Go Back

EMO v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 444
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Jul 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/21A7AFBD6720F07480257E850050A557
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The applicant obtained leave to challenge a refusal of the Minister for Justice to revoke a deportation order in respect of him and, having obtained an interim injunction enjoining his deportation at that time, then sought an interlocutory injunction. In the letter seeking revocation, the applicant’s solicitors repeated submissions which had been made in respect of the leave to remain … Read More

Principles:

The default position that deportation orders ought to be implemented may not apply where the Minister for Justice has taken a number of years to make a deportation order following an application for leave to remain, during which time the subject of the order has formed a relationship with an Irish citizen and, due to the withholding of his or her passport, been prevented from marrying the other party to the relationship.

Go Back