Nigerian man loses legal bid over his deportation

A NIGERIAN man and his family have lost their High Court bid to prevent his deportation and allow him remain in Ireland with his wife and three Irish-born children, all aged under seven.

Mr Justice John Cooke yesterday ruled that Andrew Osunde and his family had failed to make out substantial arguments for the court to grant their application for judicial review of the deportation order of May 2008.

The judge rejected arguments that the deportation of Mr Osunde would interfere with the right to respect for private and family life and the home, and therefore breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He dismissed claims the Minister had failed to identify a substantial reason for the deportation of Mr Osunde and said the Minister indicated he had considered all the issues, including the duration of the family’s residence here, the position of the children and the rights to private and family life.

Mr Osunde claimed he came to Ireland in 2006 to be with his then partner, whom he met in the UK in 2004 and married in 2007, and did not want to return to Nigeria because he wished to remain with his family. His wife has been in Ireland since 2002 and has permission to remain until 2010.

The man’s wife had a child by another man in 2003 and that child has Irish citizen status. The other two children are the children of Mr Osunde and his wife and were born here. They are aged four and two years but do not have Irish citizen status.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had rejected the man’s bid for refugee status on grounds of an alleged fear he risked being killed by his wife’s parents if he returned to Nigeria.

Mr Justice Cooke said the Minister was perfectly entitled to order Mr Osunde’s deportation arising from his personal position as being unlawfully in the State. He also ruled that the family had failed to make out a case that the deportation involved unlawful interference with their personal and family rights.

The Minister’s statement of reasons for the order outlined that he had considered humanitarian considerations, the position of the children, the rights of the man’s family and their rights under the ECHR, the judge said. It was concluded that any interference with the family’s rights would be lawful and proportionate because it pursued the pressing social need and legitimate aim of maintaining the State’s control of its borders.

Whether the State’s rights in that regard would be sufficient to outweigh the rights of the deportees and their family must depend on the circumstances of each case, the judge said.

In this case, all the necessary factors had been addressed in the analysis by the Minister, the judge said. The Minister’s reasons were of substance and could not be regarded as unlawful or invalid.