The High Court has dismissed an Albanian applicant’s judicial review challenge to a deportation order and to the International Protection Office’s refusal to consider a late review request.
In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2020, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant had not requested a review within the five-day period that followed notification of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal had rejected his appeal against the refusal of international protection in December 2018.
The applicant’s solicitors sent a purported review application to the IPO on 24 July 2019. The IPO replied that only one review was permitted and said a review had already taken place. The court recorded that this was inaccurate: no review had been requested or conducted. The IPO also said that changed circumstances could be addressed through a separate application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
The Minister made a deportation order on 9 September 2019 and notified the applicant later that month. The applicant then sought to have the order and the IPO’s letter quashed, and asked the court to direct the IPO to consider the July correspondence.
The respondents argued that the IPO’s letter was not a decision capable of judicial review. The judge rejected that preliminary objection, holding that the court could examine whether a public body’s approach was lawful whether it took the form of a decision, a failure to act or an interpretation of the law.
But the judge found that the applicant had no valid review application. The five-day limit was a statutory threshold, and the process had moved to the next stage when protection was formally refused on 12 March 2019. The court said the legislation did not provide for an extension of time; any administrative practice of accepting late requests could apply only before the process moved on.
The judge also concluded that quashing the IPO’s letter would bring no practical benefit because the IPO lacked jurisdiction to conduct a review at that stage. The application was dismissed. The judgment did not set aside the deportation order or direct the IPO to consider the late request.