Brazilian family’s arguments against deportation should have been raised at earlier stage

Judicial review - asylum and immigration law - Brazilian family challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke the deportation orders made against them - parents overstayed their permission - living and working within the state unlawfully - sought to regularise their status - refused - deportation orders made - Minister refused application to revoke the deportation orders - application to cross-examine State officer - whether an alleged scheme to give effect to the Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Protection Process (the McMahon report) exists - State's detailed averments have not been adequately contradicted - no appropriate contest of fact - fishing expedition - they are not protection applicants, so the McMahon report does not apply - the alleged conflict warranting cross-examination does not exist - failed to challenge the original deportation order - point challenged was present originally - never made any submissions that the working group report should be applied to them - Court would refuse relief on a discretionary basis having regard to the flagrant abuse of the immigration system by the parents - Court refuses an injunction restraining their deportation in accordance with Okunade v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2012] IESC 49 - judicial review refused.