You are here:

Ireland / High Court / [2014] IEHC 83

K.I. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend M.I.), A.A.O. (a minor suing by her mother and next friend M.I.), A.O. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend M.I.), M.I. and R.O. v The Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland and the Human Rights Commission

Policy area:
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
High Court
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
21/02/2014

Key facts of the case:

R.O. is a Nigerian national and a failed asylum seeker who is also the partner of the fourth named applicant, M.I.. M.I. is the mother of an Irish citizen from a previous relationship (K.I.). R.O. is not the biological father of K.I. but R.O. and M.I. are the parents of A.A.O. and A.O. who are not Irish citizens but were born in Ireland. The case was a judicial review of decisions made by the Minister in relation to R.O.’s asylum claim. R.O. claimed that as a result of the Court of Justice of European Union’s judgment in the case of Ruiz Zambrano v Office National de l’Emploi (Case C-34/09 (08.03.2011), [2011] ECR 1-1449), Ireland was precluded from refusing R.O. a right of residence in Ireland and from refusing to grant him a work permit, insofar as that decision deprives his children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their rights as EU citizens. R.O. also alleged that his deportation was in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for its failure to respect his family life.

Outcome of the case:

According to the Court, the applicants have failed to establish that the respondent’s decision is fundamentally flawed. In addition, in the Court's opinion, the applicants’ rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention were appropriately considered and the welfare and best interests of the children insofar as they could be assessed having regard to the minimal information supplied by M.I. and R.O. were fairly and properly assessed. Thus, the Court was not satisfied that the applicants have established that the first named respondent’s decision in refusing to revoke the deportation order pursuant to s. 3(11) was vitiated on any of the grounds advanced, and refused the application.