The Directorate of Immigration decided to deport the applicant indefinitely. B. contested the decision and the Immigration Appeals Board upheld it, but the re-entry ban was temporarily suspended for 20 years. A., the daughter of B., and B., further appealed and argued that the Appeals Board incorrectly assessed that a deportation would not violate their right to family life and that there is no link between the “public interest” and “state security” as interpreted in the light of the Constitution and the provisions of the ECHR and the related case law on art. 8.

The Supreme Court held that when assessing the interference with the right to family life, a number of criteria has to be considered, such as: the seriousness of the offender's offense, the risk of repeated offenses, social and cultural ties and family ties. It was noted also that a decision on deportation has consequences not only for B. but also on the interest of B.’s two children who have the right to enjoy ties with their father. The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and national legislation on international protection and rights of the child to state that adequate information is necessary and of particular importance to assess the relationship between B and his children.

The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration and the ruling of the Immigration Appeals Board were based on the incorrect premise of non -existent connection between B and his children, despite evidence that B. enjoyed access to his children before being imprisoned.  The Supreme Court stated that the lower courts should have not based their decision on the fact that the applicant was not able to obtain evidence from the children’s mother on his access to the children and that according to administrative law, the courts should have called for specialised assistance to independently assess the relationship of the children with B. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal and referred the case to the Immigration Appeals Board.