The High Court dismissed a mother’s application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings over decisions refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection to her and her two daughters, and ordering their deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2012, Mr Justice Cross also refused an injunction to prevent deportation. He said the proceedings were not the place to assess fresh country information that had not been considered by the refugee authorities or the Minister. The judgment made no assessment of the merits of any possible application based on new information under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act.
The family, identified in the judgment by initials, are DRC nationals who had lived in Kalamu, Kinshasa. The mother said she joined the UDPS political party in 2004, took part in marches and was arrested several times. She claimed that after a march in March 2008 she was held in Makala Prison for six weeks, subjected to brutality and escaped with help from her brother-in-law. These were her claims, not findings by the court.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had upheld the recommendation to refuse asylum, citing what it called problematic inconsistencies in her account. It also referred to country information indicating that conditions for UDPS members had improved, and considered medical material and a newspaper report submitted by the applicant. The Minister later refused refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain, and made deportation orders for the family.
The mother argued that the Minister lacked authority to decide the later applications because she was not a “failed asylum seeker”, relying on a pending legal challenge to the asylum appeal system. Justice Cross rejected that argument, noting that she had proceeded to seek subsidiary protection on the basis that her asylum claim had failed. He also ruled that the challenge to the 2009 refugee-status refusal had been brought more than two years later, without an explanation for the delay. Although he held that the statutory 14-day limit did not apply to that challenge, he found the application was still late under the general judicial review rules.
The court found no substantial grounds to challenge the subsidiary-protection refusal. It concluded that the Minister had considered the earlier credibility findings and country information, including updated reports, and that the applicant had not established grounds to set the decision aside.
The deportation challenge was also late. The court considered the explanation, which included seeking further legal advice and obtaining the case file, but found no good and sufficient reason to extend time. It also concluded that the Minister had considered the available country information and that the challenge lacked merit. The application for leave to seek judicial review was dismissed on all grounds.