The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge by A.O. (Nigeria) to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke a deportation order. The order remains in place; the court did not make a new deportation order in these proceedings.
The case concerned a decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, notified to the applicant on 6 June 2018, affirming the existing order. The applicant had sought to have that decision quashed and a declaration that his continued exclusion from the State was disproportionate and unfair. Leave to seek judicial review had been granted on 31 July 2018.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 30 April 2019, said a request to revisit an earlier decision faced a higher hurdle than a challenge to the original decision. The Minister could consider whether anything significantly new had been presented, rather than reconsidering the matter from scratch.
The applicant argued, among other grounds, that his revocation request was materially different because he sought to facilitate a visa application and short-term entry, rather than prevent removal. He also challenged the proportionality of the continuing order and alleged failures to consider his circumstances, employment situation and submissions. The court rejected those grounds, finding no demonstrated failure of consideration or reasons, and no evidence that the Minister had predetermined the refusal. It held that the applicant could not make his past immigration history legally irrelevant by applying on a different basis.
The judgment recounted that the applicant had used a false name in two earlier sets of court proceedings. It also recorded uncertainty over his date of birth and stated that the Minister had considered that the applicant’s fingerprints matched records associated with different dates of birth. These matters formed part of the background to the court’s discussion of discretion.
The court said that even if there had been a defect in the Minister’s decision, it would have refused relief as a matter of discretion, citing the applicant’s past conduct in proceedings. Its formal order was that the proceedings were dismissed.