Mubango -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2016] IEHC 653 (14 November 2016)

Mubango -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2016] IEHC 653 (14 November 2016)

Substantial grounds have not been shown for the proposition that the Minister's analysis of Article 8 rights was invalid. The applicant's illegal presence does not generally engage Article 8 rights. Failure to make representations in response to the deportation proposal precludes judicial review. Judicial review is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 653
Parties
Applicant: Fiona Mubango; Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality; Respondent: The Attorney; Respondent: Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for leave to seek judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Discretionary Remedies
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Deportation Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Discretionary Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Mubango

Applicant

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

The Attorney

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial grounds exist to challenge the Minister's deportation order based on Article 8 ECHR rights to private life
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's status as a settled migrant entitles her to significant protection under Article 8
  3. 3 Whether failure to make representations in response to the deportation proposal precludes judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Substantial grounds have not been shown for the proposition that the Minister's analysis of Article 8 rights was invalid. The applicant's illegal presence does not generally engage Article 8 rights. Failure to make representations in response to the deportation proposal precludes judicial review. Judicial review is discretionary and the applicant's conduct does not warrant the court's intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to seek judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to seek judicial review refused
  • Matter adjourned to enable applicant to apply for leave to appeal, if made, on notice to respondent