AAH & MAH v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 699
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:06 Dec 2024
Judge:Phelan, S.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Beneficiary of international protection, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/71642df7-af13-4ef1-a0f3-fae0d554ceb0/d1c6f144-78fd-477a-97f1-70266ae13bbf/2024_IEHC_699.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicants were both Somali nationals who had been granted international protection in Greece and subsequently travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection in the State. Their applications were deemed inadmissible under section 21(9), International Protection Act 2015. The applicants contested the inadmissibility recommendations on the grounds that conditions in Greece are such that they result in destitution, … Read More

Principles:The principle of mutual trust means a presumption that beneficiaries of international protection will be treated in accordance with the Charter, the ECHR and international human rights law in all EU Member States. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to rebut this presumption and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be of a particularly high severity to prevent return. The assessment by the decision-maker must be individualised, save for where there is a situation such as armed conflict or a humanitarian disaster. Interviews conducted as part of the sections 13 and 15 processes are sufficient in meeting the requirement for an oral stage.
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

NZ & ors v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:03 Oct 2023
Judge:Phelan, S.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Citizenship, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family (Nuclear), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Marriage of Convenience, Naturalisation, Visa
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/2c4a0156-96b1-4406-aea5-974d177175f8/47bd6fa5-1c6a-4229-b8f0-294d5fac50fa/2023_IEHC_545.pdf/pdf
Geographic Focus:Ireland, Pakistan

Facts: SMR was born in Pakistan and married an Irish national in 2004. In 2005, he moved to Ireland and he is now a naturalised Irish citizen. The couple had two children, who are Irish citizens. The applicant submitted that his marriage was subsequently dissolved in accordance with Pakistani law around 2011 and he has custody of the children. In … Read More

Principles:When deciding whether to issue a join family visa to the child of an Irish citizen, consideration must be given the child’s rights under Articles 40 to 42A of the Irish Constitution and a balancing exercise must be conducted between the child’s rights and the State’s interests and the common good.
Go Back

I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

EMNireland


I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 117
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:08 Mar 2023
Judge: Phelan S.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Country of Origin, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Protection (Subsidiary), Visa
Country of Origin:Iraq
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/944524e5-c5e2-4cb2-a71c-4408eff09ab5/2023_IEHC_117.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant is an Iraqi national who arrived in Ireland in 2011. She was granted subsidiary protection status in 2015 and in 2018 married an Iraqi national by proxy. She applied for a visa for him to join her in Ireland in 2019 under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification. The Minister refused this application and the appeal … Read More

Principles:In considering an application for family reunification under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification for a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, proper consideration must be given the impact on the applicant’s protection status and family life and ability to live together elsewhere.
Go Back

Middelkamp v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


Middelkamp v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Jaimee Middelkamp
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2023] IESC 2
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:01 Feb 2023
Judge:Hogan, G. 
Category:Immigration, Residence
Keywords:European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to)
URL:www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c0c9c765-7099-4d6d-aefa-7b84d49ba5c1/2023_IESC_%202_%20Hogan%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The respondent is a Canadian citizen and her husband is also a Canadian national. In 2018, the respondent’s husband commenced a four-year dentistry course in University College Cork and obtained a student visa. The respondent entered the State under the Working Holiday Authorisation Scheme, with a non-renewable permission valid until 2020. At the end of 2019, she applied to … Read More

Principles:The Minister’s decision engaged the respondents’ right to respect for family life under Article 8(1) ECHR, but interference with this right was justified as being necessary in a democratic society for the purposes of Article 8(2).
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

SH and AJ v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 392
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jun 2022
Judge:Ferriter C.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Discrimination (Indirect), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Syria, Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/80e83a63-c91b-47e7-a90d-99f4a672064e/2022_IEHC_392.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: SH was a Syrian national whose wife and three children resided in Syria. SH applied for international protection in Ireland in February 2020. There were delays in processing his case, including due to COVID-19. While awaiting an interview, one of SH’s sons turned 18. SH was granted refugee status in June 2021 and subsequently made a family reunification application … Read More

Principles:The delays experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic were exceptional and not unreasonable delays for processing an international protection application. The scope of the definition of family members eligible for family reunification under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 was a matter of policy choice by the legislature and not in breach of EU law, nor was it repugnant to the Constitution or the ECHR. Failure to inform a beneficiary of international protection of their right to family reunification promptly and in a language they can likely understand is in violation of Article 22 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC
Go Back

Akram v Minister for Justice and Equality and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2022] IECA 108
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:12 May 2022
Judge:Donnelly, A., Ní Raifeartaigh, U., Power, A.
Category:Immigration, Immigration law
Keywords:Border control, Detention, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62535f02-327f-472c-bf28-9244c0ea6b0a/2022_IECA_108_Donnelly%20J..pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a national of Pakistan and a student in Cyprus, was refused leave to land at Dublin Airport on 21 October 2017. While he held a visa for the State, he was refused leave to land pursuant to section 4(3)(k), Immigration Act 2004, on the grounds that there was reason to believe that he intended to enter the … Read More

Principles:When refusing leave to land, a mobile phone is among the documents that can be searched under section 7(3) of the Immigration Act 2004, however, the copying and retention of documents obtained from a mobile phone is not permitted under this section.
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

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

II v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 729
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Oct 2019
Judge:Humphreys R
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child (Separated), Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/08ccbb41-7ed2-47cc-b904-f7422dbbe652/2019_IEHC_%20729_%201.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was granted refugee status as a minor on 25 September 2014. In July 2018, when the applicant was aged 17, an application for family reunification in respect of her mother, father and sister was submitted by her social worker. In September 2018 the application was refused by the Minister for Justice on the basis that it had … Read More

Principles:Section 56(8) of the International Protection Act 2015 was not repugnant to the Constitution or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Go Back

A and S v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 547
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Jul 2019
Judge:Barrett M
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Iraq and Afghanistan
URL:courts.ie/view/judgments/a1ff7c8a-9c39-4411-b49d-a0a316a83c36/69965e47-beb6-4eda-8ef4-4f8df5726dd1/2019_IEHC_547_1.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicants were Iraqi and Afghan nationals who were granted refugee status in the State. They each subsequently applied for family reunification for their wives. The Minister for Justice refused the applications on the basis that section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 only provided for refugee family reunification for spouses where the marriage pre-dated the application for … Read More

Principles:The exclusion of post-flight marriages from the statutory right to family reunification in section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 is unconstitutional.
Go Back

RC v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 65
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Feb 2019
Judge:Humphreys R
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bd8e4e01-f677-46fd-b565-affc6965ec4a/2019_IEHC_65_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a national of Afghanistan who was granted subsidiary protection in Ireland in 2016. He subsequently applied for family reunification for his wife whom he married in 2017. The Minister for Justice refused the application on the basis that section 56(9)(a) of the 2015 Act only provided for refugee family reunification for spouses where the marriage pre-dated … Read More

Principles:The exclusion of post-flight marriages from the statutory right to family reunification in section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 is not unlawful.
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

NVH v Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General

emnadmin


NVH v Minister for Justice and Equality: Supreme Court ruling on ban on asylum seekers looking for work
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2017] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 May 2017
Judge:O'Donnell D.
Category:Employment, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Employment, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Pull Factor, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Burma
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/553e0e20-ac4a-48e6-a4fa-fef5638377ac/2017_IESC_35_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 provided that a person seeking asylum is entitled to enter the State and remain while the application for refugee status is processed. Section 9(4) also provided however, that an applicant shall not seek or enter employment before final determination of his or her application for a declaration. Pending the determination of an … Read More

Principles:

The absolute prohibition on asylum seekers seeking employment,  coupled with the absence of a maximum time limit on the processing of asylum applications, meant the prohibition was in breach of the constitutional right to seek employment.

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

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

OO (a minor) and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment


Esmé v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 26
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Mar 2015
Judge:Clarke, Laffoy and Charleton JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Minor
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/3069252C985E1A7780257E0D005DDCF9
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The appellants comprised a Nigerian lady named Esmé, her daughter, and her daughter’s three children, two of whom were minors and Irish citizens. Esmé’s daughter had arrived in the State from Nigeria and had given birth to two children, who were Irish citizens by operation of law. She was estranged from her husband and Esmé came from Nigeria to help … Read More

Principles:

Non Irish-nationals seeking leave to remain or revocation of deportation orders should make the entire case available to them based on the facts which they claim entitle them to a remedy and cannot achieve a different result by repeating the same facts or arguments, whether in different ways or not, to separate decision makers.It is not for the Minister for Justice to engage in correspondence with them or their representatives and seek information which they ought properly to put before her.

Grandmothers are not entitled to protection under Article 41 of the Constitution. It is not open to non Irish-nationals to arrive in the State on a false basis and then to arrange their affairs so as to frustrate the operation of the immigration system.

Go Back

JS and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 195
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Mar 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/abd9353b-9eca-4e2e-b525-78ab8527c1f5/2014_IEHC_195_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The second applicant, M.A., was a Nigerian national who entered Ireland lawfully on the 17th December, 2002, having been given permission to do so. He failed to comply with the conditions of his permission to work and claimed social welfare. He also committed a series of criminal offences. His application for renewal of his permission was refused in 2004. … Read More

Principles:

A non-national in respect of whom a deportation order is made will not obtain a derivative right to remain in the State on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in  C-34/09 Zambrano by virtue of being the parent of Irish and, hence, EU citizen children, if his deportation will not oblige them to leave the State or the territory of the European Union.

Having regard to Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 7 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 24 (best interests of children a primary consideration in actions concerning children), will not impinge on the power of the State to deport a non-national parent of Irish citizen children because that power is not part of the implementation of Union law.

Deportation of a non-national who has a medical condition will not breach article 3 ECHR in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as a threat to life, and particularly where treatment for the condition is available in his or her country of origin.

The extent of the obligation on the Minister for Justice to consider aspects of a proposed deportee’s family life in the course of an application for revocation of the deportation order existing in respect of him or her will vary depending on the extent to which such matters have been considered in making the deportation order and in determining any previous application for revocation.

Go Back