Proposed deportees could not insist on particular procedure

Asylum and immigration – whether a person who is served with a notice under s. 3 has a right under the Constitution or the Convention to have the representations considered and a decision made either to accept them or to reject them before the Minister proceeds to make a deportation order – section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 – Pakistani national who had permission to be in State but was then refused further permission by the Minister – Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – notification under s. 3(4) of the Immigration Act 1999 to deport – a declaration that the Minister is obliged to put in place a procedure whereby A.B. may make representations that she is entitled to reside in the State without risking being permanently excluded from the State should those representations be unsuccessful – whether the High Court judge failed to apply the principle of proportionality where the Minister had not adduced evidence to justify interference with A.B.’s rights – s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and s. 5 of the Immigration Act 2004 – legitimate State interest and with the minimum interference with the rights of the person – Judge Barak, ‘Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitation’ 2012 – fair procedures – person applying does not have any right, while the application is being considered, to remain in the State – A.B. does not possesses a right to insist on a particular procedure or to impose on the Minister an obligation to consider her application – High Court was correct in rejecting the application – appeal dismissed