The High Court dismissed judicial review proceedings brought by two applicants against deportation orders, making no order as to costs after concluding that the case had become moot.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as Z.I. (Georgia) and P.T., had sought international protection in November 2017. Their claim and an application for leave to remain were rejected in March 2018. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected their appeal in November 2018, and a later review of the leave-to-remain decision was refused in August 2019.
After that review, their solicitor made further submissions about refoulement, the return of a person to a place where they may face harm. The Department said the applicants were entitled to only one review under the relevant provision and that the submissions would be considered in relation to refoulement before any deportation order. Deportation orders were made on 30 August 2019 and served on 27 September.
The applicants sought to have the orders quashed, arguing that the Minister had failed to give reasons for rejecting their submissions and had failed to consider them. They also sent further correspondence after the orders were made but before they were served. The Minister treated that correspondence as an application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, which was refused on 28 November 2019.
Two days before the hearing, the Minister filed an affidavit exhibiting a minute showing that the August submissions had been considered before the deportation orders were made. The court said that this new information, the section 3(11) decision and the applicants’ choice not to pursue one point had together rendered the proceedings moot.
The judge noted that the applicants had promptly dropped the challenge concerning the August submissions once the minute came to light. He also said the claim that the Minister had to delay serving the deportation orders until considering the later correspondence was groundless: the correspondence could reasonably be treated as a request to revoke a decision already made.
On costs, the court found no sufficient reason to depart from the default position of no order. The proceedings were dismissed, but the judgment did not determine the substantive validity of the deportation orders.