The High Court has refused an application by ZM to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision not to revoke a deportation order against him. The court also ordered costs in favour of the respondents.
The judicial review concerned a decision made on 15 November 2019 under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister had refused ZM’s request to revoke the deportation order, which was issued on 26 August 2016. The court’s task was to review that refusal; it did not make a new determination of ZM’s protection claim or decide whether the letters he submitted were authentic.
ZM, a Pakistani national, had previously claimed that a family dispute over land led to a murder prosecution against him and that he risked the death penalty if returned. The refugee authorities rejected his protection claim, citing credibility concerns and finding, among other things, that internal relocation within Pakistan was available. Those decisions were not challenged. The deportation order also remained unchallenged.
In his request to revoke the order, ZM submitted two letters attributed to a former Azad Kashmir political leader, one dated 2016 and another described as an original dated 2019. They said he faced a murder case linked to political activity and could face the death penalty. His representatives also submitted photographs. The Minister considered the letters’ provenance and apparent discrepancies, including differences in names and references to ZM’s case being in London or Ireland, and attached no probative weight to the documents and photographs.
ZM argued that the Minister should have raised concerns about the documents with him and sought to authenticate them. He also challenged the decision as unreasonable, said relevant matters had been overlooked, and argued that adequate reasons had not been given.
Justice Tara Burns held that the section 3(11) process was not an inquiry requiring the Minister to consult with an applicant about apparent problems in documents the applicant had submitted. The applicant had an opportunity to put forward his case, and the issues identified were apparent on the face of the letters. The judge also found no duty to authenticate them: even if genuine, their contents repeated claims already considered and rejected, rather than presenting a truly materially different matter.
The court rejected the remaining grounds, finding the Minister’s reasoning open to her and sufficiently explained. It also criticised the late reliance on material that existed before the 2016 deportation order without an explanation for not submitting it earlier. The court refused certiorari and ordered costs for the respondents.