The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a deportation order made against an Egyptian man, and refused his application for leave to appeal. The court held that the challenge failed on its merits. It also said the proceedings were out of time, but made clear that this was not the basis for dismissing them.
The man and his wife challenged the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to deport him. Their grounds argued that the decision failed to account for constitutional and European Convention rights to family life, and that a finding made in an earlier residence-card process could not determine whether family life existed for deportation purposes.
The court rejected those arguments. It said an earlier statutory decision, which the applicants had not challenged, found that their marriage was one of convenience. On that basis, it held that constitutional protections and Article 8 family-life protections did not arise in relation to the marriage. It also rejected the claim that the Minister had to treat the deportation decision as a separate process from the earlier immigration decision.
The judgment recounted that the man’s residence-card permission was revoked in 2016 after the Minister proposed revocation on grounds including fraud, abuse of rights and a marriage of convenience. A review was refused in 2017. The applicants brought earlier judicial review proceedings, which were settled in 2018 with the Minister agreeing to make a fresh decision. The fresh decision, made in March 2019, had the same outcome and was not challenged.
The Minister later made a deportation order on 8 May 2019, notified to the man on 31 May. The challenge was filed on 3 July, after the deadline. The judge said no good and sufficient reason had been offered to extend time, but described those comments as obiter because he was dismissing the case on its merits.
The judge also said that, even if the applicants had established a valid legal point, he would have dismissed the proceedings in his discretion, citing wrongful conduct, lack of candour and abuse of process. He referred to inconsistencies in accounts of when and how the couple met and shortcomings in the man’s affidavit. These were the judge’s assessments in the judicial review, not a new determination of the earlier residence-card decision.
The court dismissed the proceedings and released the Minister from an undertaking not to deport the man. In refusing leave to appeal, the judge cited the delay, the case-specific conduct and the absence of an identifiable point of law that would add value to an appeal.