The High Court has refused an applicant’s bid to quash a deportation order, finding that the Minister had treated him as the holder of a valid Tanzanian passport but had not determined that he was a Tanzanian national.
The judicial review concerned a deportation order made on 29 January 2015 and notified by letter on 12 February. The applicant, identified in the judgment only as A.A., sought certiorari. Ms Justice O’Regan delivered judgment on 8 November 2016, after leave to bring the case had been granted in April 2015.
The applicant claimed to be a Somali national and a member of the Bajuni tribe. He said he had arrived in Ireland in 2011 and sought asylum. Irish authorities were told by the UK Border Agency that his fingerprints matched records for a person identified as a Tanzanian national, under a different name and date of birth, who had received a UK visa. The applicant denied knowing of the match. He later acknowledged misleading authorities about his route to Ireland and said he had travelled to the UK using a passport that was not his own.
The applicant argued that the Minister had unlawfully treated him as Tanzanian, relied on the Tribunal’s view that the UK information was conclusive, failed to make independent inquiries about his nationality and failed to consider his representations, including that he spoke Bajuni. The Minister disputed those claims, maintaining that no finding of Tanzanian nationality had been made and that the applicant had not raised his concerns about the earlier asylum decisions in his application for leave to remain under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.
The judge found that the Minister had sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant held a valid Tanzanian passport, referring to the UK Border Agency communication. She did not accept that the Minister had adopted the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision merely by referring to it. Nor did she accept that the Minister had failed to consider the applicant’s representations.
On the Bajuni-language issue, the court noted that the applicant was legally represented but had not raised concerns about the earlier credibility findings or provided further evidence on the significance of his language in his section 3 application. The judge also highlighted a discrepancy between the applicant’s sworn account of why he had not applied for subsidiary protection and a letter from the Refugee Visa Services.
The court concluded that the applicant had not established sufficient grounds for the relief sought. It refused the application for judicial review; the judgment did not make a finding that the applicant was a Tanzanian national.