Manner in which Malaysian national’s rights were assessed was lawful

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – Malaysian national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to order his deportation – argued that the Minister erred in the manner she considered his private life rights – Minister erred in finding that the decision to deport did not constitute an interference of such gravity as to engage Article 8 of the ECHR – argued that no reason or rationale is provided – argued that the Minister erred in her interpretation of “consequences of such gravity” - erred in the application of the Razgar test – Minister failed to assess whether or not the interference fell into one of the exceptions set out in Article 8 (2) of the ECHR – he and wife secured visitor’s permission - outstayed this period by approximately 2 years - returned to Malaysia - secured a 1 year valid student visa and his wife and child accompanied him without permission – attempted to regularise the position - 3-option letter - argued that he should be assessed as a settled migrant - argued student permission is sufficient, at least in some cases, to give rise to private life rights – Minister argued that student permission is particularly restricted and does not have the same liberties as permission to work in the State – Court not satisfied that the conditions which might have attached to a student visa would preclude such a party from being considered to be a settled migrant for the period for which they have permission – Court not satisfied that the European Court of Human Rights or indeed the Court of Appeal in Ireland has identified a category of aliens outside the bracket of either settled migrant or those in a precarious position - engagement of Article 8 – Court satisfied that student permission can be considered within the concept of a settled migrant – Court determined that he was a settled migrant as opposed to being a party during that particular period of time who might be considered to be within the State in a precarious position – argued that a proportionality test should have been conducted under Article 8 (2) - duty to give reasons - rationale underlying the decision must be discernible – Minister obliged to consider only matters which have been raised or objectively brought to the Minister’s attention or of which the Minister should be aware need be taken into account - when considering Article 8 rights in respect of some settled migrants it is not always the case that these rights will be considered under Article 8 (2) – Court satisfied that in the instant matter this is a case in which it was rational and reasonable to consider the Article 8 rights outside the proportionality assessment under Article 8(2) - vast majority of his stay in Ireland was illegal - minimum details as to integration or societal links were furnished - deportation order would not have any adverse consequences to his family life – no exceptional circumstances - decision maker took into account the question required in the Razgar test – rationale underlying the decision is discernible – judicial review refused.