A South African man who claims he is the primary carer of his three children has lost his bid to prevent his deportation from the State, writes Ann O'Loughlin.
The man's wife and children are legally here and, while he previously secured permission to remain, his deportation was ordered after it emerged he initially sought asylum, and later permission to remain, under a false name and false Zimbabwean nationality.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said, while the man will be entitled to apply for non-EEA family reunification, that and other matters cannot prevent deportation. "Children are not a shield against deportation arising from parental conduct".
While it was unfortunate the man's family life will be "in disarray" as a result, he should have thought about that before making a fradulent asylum claim and showing "flagrant disregard" for Irish laws, he added.
Both the man and his wife are South African nationals. She is legally present here since 2002. He came here in 2008 and sought asylum in a false name and false Zimbabwean nationality. After being refused, he left the State in early 2011 and a deportation order was made in his false name in late 2014.
He returned here on an entry visa after the deportation order was made but left again before that visa expired.
The couple married in August 2015 and he returned on a more long term basis in late 2015 and applied for permisison to join his wife. That was granted in July 2016 but, when his fingerprints were being taken to process it, it emerged he was previously subject of a deportation order in the false name.
He sought to remain but was later notified by the Minister for Justice the deportation order was being amended to include his correct name as an alias alongside the incorrect name.
He made a further application under the Immigration Act complaining the amendment to the deportation order was made without notice to him and deportation would adversely impact his family's rights, particulary as two of the children have special needs. He applied for leave for judicial review and also sought an injunction halting his deportation.
In his recent judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys held the man had not established the necessary substantial grounds for judicial review and was not entitled to the injunction.
In asessing whether the man's complaints amounted to substantial grounds, it is important to bear in mind the man engaged in "a fraud on the immigration system" by seeking asylum in a false name and nationality which was continued to the extent of registering the children's births in the false name, he said. There is an application to correct the children's registration, he noted.
He rejected arguments the manner of amending the deportation order was disproportionate, arbitrary or the individual circumstances of the husband and family were not properly weighed and considered. He also dismissed claims the procedures breached constitutional rights or family rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The correction of the deportaiton order was triggered by the man's own application and there was no requirement to give him notice of it. It was also "simply incorrect" to argue the Minister had not taken into account the impact of deportation on the family. The right to have one's circmstances taken into account was not a right to succeed.