Mauritian family’s rights were lawfully considered in refusing them permission to reside in the State

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Mauritian family challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to renew the parents’ permission to remain in the State – whether inadequate account was taken of their private and family life – parents entered the State as students – child born in the State - time limit of seven years in the State as a student - terms of the scheme could not be waived in exceptional circumstances - presence in the State as a student is not be taken into account for the purposes of long-term residency - no family reunification rights arise – parents made submission to the Minister seeking to vary their student permission into a long term resident permission – father’s permission expired while waiting for a decision - Minister refused to give them long term residence – whether the Minister is required to consider private and family life when deciding on a permission – when private and family rights should be considered in the context of an administrative decision – whether private or family rights engaged – persons whose presence in the State was either illegal or precarious generally enjoyed Article 8 rights that were either of minimal weight or non-existent - nothing to prevent them from enjoying a private and family life in Mauritius – family have not established the relevant exceptional circumstances provided in caselaw – whether their family and private rights were interfered with by the refusal of an application for renewal of permission - whether those rights could have been vindicated by requiring them to renew their application from outside the State rather than await the deportation process - legitimate for the Minister to require that certain categories of permission applications should be made from outside the State - a decision of the Minister declining to approve an application for extension of permissions from persons who did not meet the terms of the non-EEA student scheme at that stage to enable them to obtain long term residency did not interfere with their rights - no worse off – whether the Minister is obliged to publish policies regarding treatment of those who have completed their seven-year student visas – family argued that the Minister unlawfully fettered her discretion by adopting the position that she never had to consider the ECHR or constitutional rights – Court determined that this was a mis-description of the process – the Minister taking the view that she is not obliged to consider those rights does not constitute fettering her discretion - decision was not inflexible - discretionary factors - stare decisis – Court refused family judicial review.