The High Court has quashed part of a decision refusing to revoke a deportation order and sent that part back to the Minister for reconsideration. The challenge concerned an applicant’s claim that she would face harm in Nigeria because of her same-sex orientation.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the ministerial decision did not refer to the correct refoulement test in section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015. The decision’s wording also left unclear why the decision-maker concluded that refoulement was not an issue.
In particular, the court could not tell whether the applicant’s credibility had been questioned, or why. It was also unclear what supported the decision’s conclusion that state protection was available, including its finding that Nigeria had a functioning police force and judiciary. The judgment said it was uncertain whether that conclusion drew on a US State Department country report or the Minister’s general knowledge of Nigeria.
During the hearing, the Minister’s counsel raised a series of concerns about the applicant’s account. These included the delay in raising the same-sex orientation claim, the rejection of an earlier asylum claim on credibility grounds, and the applicant’s long evasion of immigration authorities. The judgment also records questions about other aspects of her account and her reliance on an alleged incident involving a girl in her village. However, the court said it was unclear which, if any, of those matters had been considered by the decision-maker.
The court found that certiorari was appropriate because of the failure to refer to the relevant statutory provision and the ambiguities in the decision. It exercised its discretion to quash only the part dealing with the homosexuality claim under section 50. Findings on other issues in the section 3(11) decision were left standing; the court did not quash the entire refusal to revoke the deportation order.
The Minister must reconsider the part concerning the section 50 assessment of the applicant’s claim. The judgment does not determine the outcome of that reconsideration.