South African who submitted an asylum application in a false name is not entitled to judicial review

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – application for leave to judicially review the decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse a South African national’s application to revoke the deportation order made against him - application for an injunction restraining his removal from the State - sought asylum under a false name and a false Zimbabwean nationality – applications and appeals were refused - left the State – deportation order made against him under the false name – married a South African national who was lawfully residing in the State – returned to Ireland - applied for permission to remain on the basis of his marriage – permission granted – in the process of taking his fingerprints it was discovered that he had been issued with a deportation order under a different name – made an application to revoke the deportation order – refused – Minister issued deportation order in the correct name – made second application to revoke the deportation order – argued that the amendment was made without notice to the husband – argued that he was the primary carer of the children of the family and that the deportation would have an adverse impact on the family and the rights of the members of that family - whether there are substantial grounds – disproportionate interference with his family rights and the rights of the child – argued that the Minister took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations - engaged in a fraud on the immigration system by submitting an asylum application in a false name with a false nationality - not in a position to take any issue factually with the amendment made by the Minister to identify the actual identity of the person who made the fraudulent application - correction was triggered by his application to revoke the deportation order - absolutely no grounds of substance for any complaint as to the lawfulness of the Minister’s entitlement to make that amendment – failure to take into consideration the effect the deportation will have on the children - simply not correct to say that the Minister did not take into account the impact on the family - no substantial grounds for the contention that the Minister did not take into account impact on the family – leave refused – Okunade test for an injunction - has not established an arguable case the application must be refused - giving such weight as may be appropriate to any public interest in the overall operation of the particular scheme in which the measure under challenge was made supports permitting deportation – gave appropriate weight if any to any additional factors arising on the facts of the individual case which would heighten the risk to the public interest to the specific measure not implemented pending resolution of the proceedings – no matters raised that can outweigh the default position of permitting deportation - children are not a shield against deportation arising from parental conduct - court should give all due weight to the consequences for the applicant of being required to comply with the measure under challenge in the circumstances where that measure may found to be unlawful - no protection issue - all due weight being given to the strength or weaknesses of the applicants’ case -  case on weak end of the spectrum - demonstrated not only a lack of candour but a flagrant disregard of Irish law and the immigration/asylum laws of this State – whether the amendment to the deportation order was a new fact of the type which would stay the implementation of the deportation order – no new fact-  fact of the original asylum application being made in a fraudulent name was known at all material times - no reason to believe that there is any risk of deportation to Zimbabwe following receipt of accurate information as to his identity – deportation order refused.