The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani national’s judicial review challenge to decisions concerning permission to remain and a deportation order. The court rejected the application, including a separate challenge to what the applicant described as a decision under section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 31 July 2020, concerned an applicant identified as M.H. (Pakistan). His international protection claim had been refused, and the appeal against that refusal had been dismissed. The protection decisions themselves were not challenged in these proceedings.
The applicant said he feared persecution in Pakistan following the alleged murder of his uncle and cousins in 2005, and alleged that people involved in the killings later accosted him. The judgment records that he did not provide direct evidence of the alleged deaths despite being given time to do so. The Minister refused his application for permission to remain on review, and a deportation order was made on 1 March 2019.
The applicant argued that the Minister had mishandled his private and family life and medical circumstances, including evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. He also alleged unfairness over information about his immigration history in the UK and his move from direct provision accommodation to private rental accommodation. Further grounds said the Minister had failed to consider relevant information and his account of an assault when assessing the risk of return to Pakistan.
The judge found that several grounds were too general and failed to explain precisely how the Minister had acted unlawfully. He said the applicant had been told about information received from UK authorities during an interview and had not contested it. The court also found no basis to conclude that the medical report or other relevant material had not been considered. The judge noted that the report relied on the applicant’s account and that the core account had already been rejected in the protection process.
The court held that the section 50 consideration was not a separate decision open to review in its own right. It formed part of the legal basis for the deportation order. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The judgment does not state that the deportation order was quashed or altered.