The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge by M.N. (Malawi) to a decision concerning non-refoulement and a deportation order. It also discharged the Minister for Justice and Equality from an undertaking not to deport the applicant.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave judgment on 21 June 2019. He held that a document dated 14 August 2018, although headed as a review under section 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015, was not legally a decision under that provision. The section required information from the applicant, and he had made no submission triggering a review. The document instead recorded that no review was taking place and set out the Minister’s position on whether return would breach the Act’s prohibition of refoulement.
M.N. applied for asylum in June 2016. After missing two interview appointments, his application was treated as withdrawn; he later explained his absences and received a new interview date. He applied for subsidiary protection in February 2017, but the International Protection Office refused his protection claim in May that year. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in July 2018.
The court noted that after the appeal, M.N. could have submitted further information seeking a review of the refusal of permission to remain, including information relevant to refoulement. He made no such submission and did not allege a change in circumstances in Malawi. The Minister made a deportation order on 7 September 2018 after M.N. did not indicate that he wished to return voluntarily. The order required him to leave by 28 October or present for removal on 31 October.
M.N. argued that the Minister had failed to consider relevant country information and that the decision did not identify the material relied on. The judge found there was no evidence that relevant information had been ignored. He said the Minister was not required to list every item of country information in the decision, provided the material considered could be ascertained. The applicant had not asked for clarification of the material or made submissions about refoulement.
The court also rejected the argument that the Minister could not rely on the tribunal’s decision. It held that the Minister could consider earlier protection decisions and adopt their reasoning when assessing refoulement, unless exceptional circumstances or new information warranted a different conclusion. The judge found no demonstrated error in compliance with section 50 and dismissed the proceedings.