No new facts had been established to justify revocation of deportation order

Clarke J (nem diss): Judicial review – extent to which it is necessary, in immigration law, to look at the rights of each family member from the perspective of the family as a whole – different members of the family had different status – whether the deportation of the father would amount to a disproportionate interference with the personal and family rights of the applicants – father had a criminal record and guilty of significant breaches of the immigration system – leave application before Cooke J. – impact of the Zambrano decision – test used in assessing the conduct of the Minister when considering an application for revocation – must be based on some new fact or information or change of circumstance – change of circumstance not relevant as the application was a repeat of the previous application – applicant did not seek judicial review of the previous decision – whether the Minister carried out an appropriate analysis of the interference with the right to family life – applicants failed to challenge the analysis of the Minister and it was no longer open to him to challenge it – argued that the Minister was obliged to reconsider the application for revocation not only when a new fact post dating the order emerges but also when a previously unknown fact arises or when there is a material change in the law relevant to the reconsideration of deportation orders – Minister obliged as a result of recent ECJ judgments to reconsider the effect of deportation on the family life of all appellants – reasonableness of the family relocating to Nigeria – insufficient weight given to the fact that deportation would result in a permanent separation from his children –re-evaluation might conclude differently on the proportionality of the interference with the rights to respect family life – challenge the conclusion that the misconduct of the father was such as to amount to a compelling reason for him not to exercise his discretion to grant leave – claimed that the trial judge erred in characterising the second application for revocation as an attempt to postpone the implementation of the deportation order – whether a sufficiently arguable case had been made out – court not concerned with whether the issues raised are necessarily correct but mere whether those issues are arguable to the necessary standard – delay – the need to bring finality and certainty to the immigration process in a timely fashion – obligation to put before the Minister all relevant materials – a party cannot artificially create a new pint by the simple expedient of making multiple applications for the revocation of a deportation order – Minister may be required to reassess the position of a proposed deportee or other persons who have family rights in the event that there is a material and applicable change in the legal framework for carrying out such an assessment – discretion of the trial judge in the event of there being arguable grounds to refuse to remit this matter to the Minister – discretion does not mean a judge can override the law or interfere with the rights of an individual.

Alli (a minor) v. The Minister for Justice [2010] 4 IR 45,
Case C-34/09 Zambrano [2011] ECR I-0000,
S. & ors v. Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 417,
Case C-256/11 Dereci [2011] ECR I-0000,
G. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 1 I.R. 374,
Gordon v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] 2 I.R. 369,
Okunade v. Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 49,
C.R.A. v Minister for Justice [2007] 3 IR 603,
Irfan v Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 422