Brazilian national’s challenge to deportation order is totally misconceived

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Brazilian national challenging deportation order made against him – never had permission to remain - notice of intention to deport – entered into a relationship with a Latvian national - Minister sought further information in relation to the application for leave to remain and their relationship - no application for permission to remain in the State on the basis of the free movement directive before deportation order made – deportation order made – application for permission to remain in the State on the basis of the free movement directive made – application refused – alleged failure to consider free movement rights - Minster consider all the facts raised under the appropriate headings relevant to a deportation order in the context of a process in which those points were actually made - alleged failure to carry out a lawful analysis of his family rights - well-established that deportation breaches article 8 only in exceptional circumstances - no such circumstances have been demonstrated – Minister considered family rights – Minister’s determination of family rights was lawful - alleged failure to conduct a proportionality analysis - unsettled migrant - legitimate for the Minister to decide that a proportionality exercise was unnecessary - alleged error in assessment of employment prospects - wide margin of appreciation for the Minister to assess issues such as employment prospects – proceedings misconceived – judicial review refused.