Refusal to revoke deportation order against Nigerian national was lawful

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke the deportation order made against him - Nigerian entered the State on a visa which was issued to him as the son of an EU national - no evidence that the father was, in fact, present in the State at the time of the son’s arrival - permission to be in the State for a period of one month – not renewed - made fraudulent application for asylum claiming to be a Mr. Kingsley Chucks from Sierra Leone - passport was seized - fraudulent asylum application was withdrawn – met an Irish citizen – received proposal to deport him – applied for leave to remain - began a relationship with the Irish citizen – became engaged - applied for permission to be in the State under the de facto relationship scheme - judicial review seeking the Minister for determine his leave to remain application - deportation order was made – challenged the deportation order by way of a second judicial review - issue of costs in the first judicial review and the merits of the second judicial review were compromised – made an application to revoke the deportation order on the basis of his long residence in the State and the de facto relationship - application was refused – initiated proceedings challenging these decisions- granted an interlocutory injunction restraining his deportation - have not given any notice of their intention to marry – whether the fact that the original proceedings challenging the deportation order had been compromised furnish an exception to the general principle that an applicant is generally precluded from seeking to advance a point which he or she could have advanced when the deportation order was under consideration when applying to revoke the deportation order- restricted scope of matters that can legitimately furnish grounds for a challenge to a decision not to revoke a deportation order - must be a “compelling explanation” for a point being raised at that stage which could have been dealt with at the deportation order stage - the mere fact that proceedings challenging the deportation order were compromised does not furnish grounds to permit an applicant to reopen at the application to revoke stage points which were available to him at the deportation stage - by agreeing to strike out his proceedings challenging the deportation order, he in effect waived all of the points which he could have made attacking the legality of that order – whether it is it lawful for the Minister to decline to consider, at the application to revoke a deportation order stage, procedural illegalities in the deportation order, where these issues could have been raised in judicial review of the original deportation order - procedural illegality such as the illegitimate use of conjecture, the failure to consider matters, an incorrect test or lack of reasoning is simply not the sort of illegality that the Minister is required to reconsider or bear in mind at all at application to revoke stage – whether it is lawful for the Minister to decline to consider, at application to revoke stage substantive illegality in the deportation order – no defect in the original deportation order - none that the Minister was required to revisit at the application to revoke stage - there is no such breach and accordingly even if the Minister failed to consider art. 8 at the application to revoke stage, any such failure is not a basis to quash the s. 3(11) decision – argued that there has been a change in the law between the deportation order and refusal to revoke the deportation order decision which means that he is entitled to revisit the original decision – court found that there was no change in the law which would have affected the validity of the deportation order.