Constitutional rights of married couple lawfully considered in decision refusing to revoke deportation order

Judicial review – man who claimed to be a Sierra Leonean national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke the deportation order made against him – refused asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain – deportation order issued – applied to have the deportation order revoked on the basis of his marriage to an Irish citizen – applied for an injunction restraining his deportation pending the determination of his judicial review proceedings - Irish citizen was not aware that he had been refused asylum and that a deportation order had been made – accepted that he sought international protection on a false basis – true nationality was Nigerian – Irish citizen was aware that his permission to be in the State was precarious – argued that the decision is irrational and is based on an error of law because the constitutional rights of the couple were not lawfully considered – argued that the decision was disproportionate because its starting point was not an acceptance that they had a prima facie right to live together as a married couple - absence of specificity with which constitutional rights are analysed - no doubt but that the constitutional rights were fully and properly considered - not legally relevant that the decision maker did not refer to particular provisions of the Constitution - balancing exercise takes place by weighing the asserted family and marital rights against the State’s rights in protecting its immigration system and policy - not incumbent upon the Minister to commence an assessment of a revocation application based upon a recent marriage with an express acceptance of a prima facie right to reside together – casually contracted marriage following short relationship would not be the same as a serious bona fide marriage experienced for many years.