The High Court has refused an asylum applicant leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order, finding that he had not established substantial grounds for challenging the Minister’s decision.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 12 December 2008. The applicant, identified as O. S. T., sought leave to challenge three decisions: the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his asylum appeal, the Minister’s refusal of subsidiary protection, and the deportation order.
The court refused leave to challenge the first two decisions on procedural grounds. The applicant brought proceedings more than 15 months after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, despite a statutory 14-day period. The judge found the delay inordinate and said the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation. He therefore refused an extension of time.
The subsidiary protection refusal was notified on 25 June 2008. Although the proceedings were brought within the six-month outer limit for seeking leave to challenge that decision, the judge found that the applicant had not moved promptly, as required by court rules. Leave to seek judicial review of that refusal was also denied.
The case therefore proceeded only as a challenge to the deportation order. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider several factors listed in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, had delayed in deciding his application to remain, and had not adequately assessed the effect of deportation on his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge rejected those arguments at the leave stage. He found that the Minister was not required to list every factor considered and that the departmental analysis had fairly considered the applicant’s representations. The judge also noted that the applicant had been invited to update those representations after being told his subsidiary protection application had failed, but had not done so. No prejudice from the delay, or change in circumstances affecting the decision, had been pleaded.
On private life, the judge found that the departmental analysis had addressed whether deportation would interfere with the applicant’s rights and whether any interference would be serious enough to engage Article 8. On the material before the decision-maker, it was open to her to conclude that the threshold was not met.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review of the deportation order. It did not determine a full judicial review of that order or make a new decision on the applicant’s protection claims.