The High Court has directed the Minister for Justice and Equality to provide further reasons for a refoulement assessment underlying a deportation order against K.A. (Ghana). The court adjourned the judicial review proceedings to allow those reasons to be provided and considered. It did not quash the order at this stage.
The case concerned a review under section 49(9) of the International Protection Act 2015. K.A. had claimed persecution in Ghana after refusing a traditional chieftaincy. His asylum and subsidiary protection claims were rejected by the International Protection Office in August 2017, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in January 2018. A deportation order was made on 5 June 2018 and notified on 14 June. Leave for judicial review was granted on 9 July, with certiorari of the deportation order sought as the primary relief.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the difficulty lay in the Minister’s treatment of refoulement under section 50 of the Act. The review stated that “the country of origin information does not indicate that the applicant would be at risk of refoulement if the applicant returned to Ghana”. The judgment said the Minister could reach that conclusion either by adopting earlier findings that disbelieved the applicant’s account, or by finding that country information did not establish a qualifying risk even if the account were true.
The court said the Minister’s analysis did not clearly state whether the applicant’s credibility findings had been adopted. The wording also left unclear whether the country information assessment concerned the applicant as a failed asylum seeker or assessed the risk on the assumption that his own account was correct. The judge said the first interpretation was probably more likely, but had not been clearly expressed.
Because the problem was an ambiguity in the reasons rather than a fundamental or irremediable defect, the court said quashing the decision would be disproportionate. It directed the Minister to clarify whether he adopted the tribunal’s credibility rejection and which basis he used for the country-material assessment. The proceedings were adjourned for a period to be fixed; the judgment does not record a final determination of the judicial review.