A woman who worked mainly as a carer for elderly people after arriving in the State in 2005 has lost her challenge to a deportation order.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said it was reasonable for the Minister of Justice to have concluded the woman has no “specialist” skills which are “deficient” in the State.
The Filipino woman has not worked since 2014 and the fact she “allowed herself to enter into informal employment arrangements” and thus cannot get employer references or tax documents, “hardly helps her position”, he added.
The woman came here on a work permit in February 2005 and remained illegally after her permit expired in May 2010 until April 2012 when she got a further permit. After that expired in May 2014, she stayed on illegally. Her husband and three children remained in the Philippines during her time in Ireland.
She never applied for international protection but, on being told in October 2015 of a proposal to deport her, she instructed solicitors who made representations for her and later sought a judicial review when a deportation order was issued last June.
Issues
Mr Justice Humphreys said there was no basis to adjourn the case, as sought by the lawyers, pending a Supreme Court judgment in another case concerning whether the Minister must set out broad policies or criteria regarding deportations.
Those issues were not grounds for judicial review in this case and suggestions the Supreme Court might establish a right to be in the State if a person was here for five years and had committed no offence were an “outlandish interpretation of legal rights”, he said.
Evidence of a particular approach being taken to protection applicants did not apply because the woman had not applied for protection and it was also reasonable for the Minister to have concluded the woman has no specialist skills which are deficient in the State, he held.
He also ruled the effect of the woman’s deportation on her children did not fall within the scope of Article 8 family and private life rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
While it was argued the woman was working so her children could attend education and get better opportunities, she had not worked since 2014, he said.
Unsustainable
The argument her deportation could breach the children’s Article 8 rights was “unsustainable” and there was no right for an illegal immigrant to stay here so as to work for their children’s education.
In his judgment on a separate case, Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed a challenge by a Kosovan-born Albanian man who was refused asylum after coming here in 2011 and whose deportation was ordered in late 2016.
It was argued that the Minister failed to properly consider the man’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, particularly family life rights as his brother is a recognised refugee living here. The judge held the details of private life, dependency and related matters were not sufficiently set out to the Minister.
The man also failed to set out, when seeking judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to revoke his deportation, anything that was not there at the time of the original deportation order, the judge said. The Minister was entitled to conclude new medical information concerning the man’s depression did not amount to “exceptional circumstances”.
