High Court found that the Minister erred in fact and in law in making the decision
MH and SH (A Minor Suing By Her Mother and Next Friend MH) v. The Minister for Justice  IEHC 360 (High Court (Judicial Review), Barrett J, 22 July 2020)
Last week the High Court granted judicial review of the decision to deport a Pakistani national and the Court held that that the Minister for Justice and Equality erred in law and in fact in deciding to deport her.
The case arose from an EU Treaty Rights application concerning the free movement of persons Regulations. The applicant, a Pakistani national challenged the deportation order made against her. The applicant was widowed in Pakistan and her permanent residence application was based upon the fact that she was dependent upon her brother whom she resides with in Ireland. The State questioned the existence of the claimed relationship and a decision was made by the Minister that she did not fulfil criteria of a permitted family member. A deportation Order issued against her and it was claimed that a sufficient examination of her file had not been carried out.
The Minister was obliged to consider her duration in this state, family and domestic circumstances. There appeared to be a lack of consideration of her nature of connection with State. Insufficient regard had been given to humanitarian considerations and the decision lacked sufficient reasons having taken all of the required considerations into account. The Court held that there was a breach of her family and personal rights. The Court found that the Minister had erred in law and in fact in deciding to deport Pakistani national and the Court granted the judicial review.
The Court noted the following:
“For the reasons outlined above, the court considers that: (i) the respondent erred in law and perhaps also fact in making the decision to deport; (ii) the respondent’s deliberations in the deportation matter are inchoate; (iii) the decision to deport was unreasonable; and (iv) the respondent erred in law and perhaps also fact in failing to have proper regard to the provisions and consequences of s.3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, Art.8 ECHR and s.50 of the International Protection Act 2015. Though the point was not pursued at length at hearing, the court further considers that the respondent erred in law and perhaps also in fact in issuing the deportation orders without due regard for the welfare of Ms SH as a minor, in breach of Art.42A of the Constitution (and, if that had not been breached, in breach of Art.8 ECHR..”