The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by J.A. (Pakistan) against deportation-related decisions and discharged an injunction that had prevented his removal from the State. The court dismissed the case on its merits; it did not formally decide whether to extend time for the challenges to earlier decisions.
The proceedings, commenced on 27 March 2018, challenged a deportation order made on 22 January 2016 and two decisions refusing applications to revoke it under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The first revocation refusal was dated 21 April 2017 and the second 6 April 2018. The applicant accepted that the challenge to the deportation order was difficult to bring because of delay; the challenge to the first refusal was also nearly a year out of time.
The case followed an emergency injunction granted by Mr Justice Barniville on 27 March 2018 to prevent the applicant’s removal the next day. At that hearing, the applicant’s solicitor presented a draft affidavit stating that no decision had been made on the second revocation application. The judge later found it overwhelmingly likely that the applicant had been told by his former solicitors that the first revocation application had been refused. He considered it more probable than not that the applicant knew the second application had also been refused before seeking the injunction.
Mr Justice Humphreys held that the section 3(11) process was limited. The Minister could refuse revocation if the submissions had been considered and there were no changed factual or legal circumstances warranting revocation. The judge found that the Minister had considered the applicant’s family circumstances, private life and Article 8 rights, and had weighed them against the public interest in deportation, including the applicant’s history of convictions. He concluded that the Minister’s assessment was not unreasonable and that the pleaded grounds had not been made out.
The judgment also addressed notice of the decisions. It held that including a new address in a wider letter to the Department did not formally change the address for service under the Act, so notice sent to the previously notified address remained valid. The judge said the challenges were substantially out of time but, because he was dismissing the application on its merits, he did not formally decide the time issue.
The court dismissed the application on the merits and discharged the injunction against deportation. It also said that, going forward, lawyers making ex parte immigration applications would be expected to meet duties of enquiry and candour, while declining to criticise the applicant’s current lawyers retrospectively in this case.