[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
Page 1 ⇓
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
[2019] IEHC 857
[2016 No. 757 J.R.]
BETWEEN
IBIBA GIRLIE JACKS
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 10th day of December
2019
1. The applicant arrived in the state from Nigeria in July, 2008. She was given a student
permission until 2nd December, 2013. When that ran out she did not leave the State as
required, but instead applied for a Stamp 4 permission on 8th January, 2014. That was
refused on 22nd October, 2014. The Minister did, however, give her a temporary
extension of her student permission until 3rd December, 2014 to enable her to finalise
her affairs in the State prior to departure.
2. During the period the applicant following expiry of her student permission worked
unlawfully in the State. She was informed of the Minister’s intention to make a
deportation order on 16th February, 2015. She unsuccessfully made representations and
was then the subject of a deportation order on 15th August, 2016.
3. The leave application in the present proceedings challenging that order was first moved
on 10th October, 2016 and was then adjourned by MacEochaidh J. In the meantime, the
applicant in fact left the State in November, 2016. Leave was ultimately granted on 16th
January, 2017.
4. I received helpful submissions from Mr. Conor Power S.C. (with Mr. Ian Whelan B.L.) for
the applicant and from Ms. Sylvia Martinez B.L. for the respondent.
5. The question presented by the proceedings is whether the Minister erred in his
assessment of the applicant’s private life rights. He did not so err: see Harish v. Minister
for Justice and Equality (Unreported, High Court, 10th December 2019). This applicant
was here as a student for five years, and a temporary three-month extension was offered
to allow her to finalise her affairs. The rest of her presence has been unlawful.
6. Mr. Power submits that the exceptional circumstances that apply to the applicant are:
(i). She is a widow.
(ii). She was here for over five years lawfully.
(iii). She was here for eight years in total.
(iv). She is 62 and thus at a time in her life that moving around would be disruptive.
(v). Retirement is looming.
Page 2 ⇓
(vi). As one gets older health issues may come into it.
However, those do not amount to exceptional circumstances.
7. The non-settled nature of her presence here and the lack of exceptional circumstances
were such that it was lawfully open to the Minister to conclude that deportation does not
engage the operation of art. 8 of the ECHR, as applied by the European Convention on
Human Rights Act 2003. That has already been determined by MacMenamin J. in P.O. v.
Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IESC 64 [2015] 3 I.R. 164, a decision cited in the
analysis supporting the deportation order, which is reasoning that renders the decision
lawful.
Order
8. The proceedings are dismissed.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019IEHC857.html
