A Nigerian woman has secured leave from the High Court to pursue her claim that, in deciding to deport her, the Minister for Justice failed to consider her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to marry a person of her choice.
Jummi Abdukhareem had said she was locked in a room in Nigeria and told she must marry a 70-year-old man and undergo female genital mutilation.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday ruled that Ms Abdukhareem had established substantial grounds for the bringing of judicial review proceedings aimed at overturning a deportation order made by the Minister for Justice in December 2004. On foot of that order, she was imprisoned for three weeks in February 2005.
The judge noted Ms Abdukhareem arrived here in May 1998. While her application for refugee status was rejected in March 1999, she was informed by the asylum division of the Department of Justice in December 1999 that she was authorised to work here and was permitted to remain here for that purpose.
However, in early 2002, she was told it was proposed to make a deportation order against her and she was invited to apply for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. She did apply but heard nothing more until she received a letter on January 31st, 2005, informing her a deportation order was made against her in December 2004.
Granting leave to bring a challenge to that order, Mr Justice Gilligan held that, because of errors in how the Department of Justice's Repatriation Unit dealt with Ms Abdukhareem's application, the Minister for Justice had made the deportation order based on incorrect evidence about her work record. He noted Ms Abdukhareem had received very good reports for her work as an auxiliary nurse and care attendant in various hospitals.
On that basis, Ms Abdukhareem had established substantial grounds for her claim that the Minister had failed to meet the requirements of the Immigration Act 1999. The judge granted leave to pursue that claim through judicial review.
Ms Abdukhareem had also established substantial grounds to support her claim that the Minister had failed to consider the effect of a deportation order on a number of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including her right to marry in a manner of her choice and her status as an integrated migrant working here, the judge ruled. Reports of officials of the Repatriation Unit had failed to consider those matters, he noted.
