The High Court has quashed a decision refusing to revoke a deportation order against an Armenian man, finding that the Minister had not properly considered three material issues. The matter was referred back to the Minister for further consideration under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2014, Mr Justice Barr said the Minister’s assessment had not addressed the particular risks the applicant said he would face as a Jehovah’s Witness. The court said country-of-origin information before the decision-maker credibly showed discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Armenia and that attacks on them went unpunished. A general finding that Armenia had functioning security forces did not address those specific dangers.
The applicant’s asylum claim had previously been rejected by the Commissioner and on appeal by the Tribunal. A deportation order was made in 2003. In 2010, the Minister said there was no power to consider the applicant’s subsidiary protection application because the deportation order pre-dated the relevant 2006 regulations. The application was instead treated as a request to revoke the order, and the refusal was conveyed on 14 December 2010. The judgment describes the decision under challenge as dated 21 October 2010 and affirmed on 10 December 2010.
The court also found that the Minister had not properly answered the second question in the Article 8 assessment: whether deportation would engage the applicant’s right to respect for private life. The Minister had accepted that deportation could interfere with that right but had not determined whether it was engaged. The judge said the decision-maker should also take account of the applicant’s time in Ireland since 2000 when considering whether he had established a private life.
Medical evidence was another ground for quashing the refusal. Earlier reports from the applicant’s GP had briefly referred to suicidal tendencies. Later reports by consulting psychiatrist Brian McCaffrey described past attempts at self-harm and assessed the applicant as being at high risk of suicide if deported. The court treated those reports as new information that required consideration. Although the revocation decision referred to them, it did not explicitly address the credible suicide risk identified in the evidence.
The ruling quashed the refusal and required reconsideration. It did not revoke the deportation order or determine the applicant’s underlying protection claim; those matters were returned to the Minister for a fresh consideration under section 3(11).