The High Court refused an application to quash a deportation order made against Eric Hyacinthe Kouaype, finding no basis to interfere with the Minister’s decision. The judicial review concerned only the deportation order; the court had not granted leave to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) decision.
Mr Justice Clarke said the Minister had to consider whether deportation was prohibited by section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 and take account of humanitarian and other factors under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999. He held that, following a failed asylum application, the court’s scope to review those assessments was limited. The Minister had to consider relevant representations and statutory factors, but their weight was for the Minister.
The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material, including submissions about a threat from a body described as “the operational command” and country information about human rights abuses and state agents in Cameroon. The Minister’s department filed evidence that the decision-maker had the applicant’s representations and papers from the asylum process, including the RAT decision. That tribunal had concluded that the difficulties the applicant might face in Cameroon arose from a family dispute, rather than a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. That decision was not challenged in these proceedings.
The judge said the material before the Minister was sufficient to show that the representations had been considered. He also addressed a separate issue raised in submissions: the position of failed asylum seekers returned to Cameroon, which did not appear to have been raised before the RAT. Country information before the Minister indicated that Cameroonian authorities were not informed when failed asylum seekers returned, that such people were not routinely stopped, detained or questioned, and that there was no law providing for their prosecution for seeking asylum abroad. The judge said it was open to the Minister to conclude that this issue would not change the section 5 assessment.
The court also found that the applicant had been given the statutory opportunity to make representations, including on humanitarian grounds, and that the evidence showed the Minister considered them. The judge declined to allow additional grounds raised shortly before the hearing, concluding that they would not advance the case under the limited scope of review he had identified.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment did not quash the deportation order.