The High Court has refused leave for M.A.K. to bring a judicial review challenge to a decision to issue a deportation order, finding that the proposed grounds did not meet the required threshold.
In a judgment delivered on 17 July 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan said the application was governed by section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The grounds had to be reasonable, arguable and weighty, and not trivial or tenuous.
M.A.K. had sought to quash the decision, notified by letter on 9 May 2017, to issue a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1999. He also sought declarations concerning whether removal or deportation procedures applied and alleged fundamental errors in the examination of his file.
At the hearing on 26 June, the applicant withdrew the part of his claim challenging the finding that his marriage was one of convenience. The judge noted that he had been notified of that finding in 2016 and had not challenged it at the time.
On the procedure issue, the applicant relied on a High Court ruling concerning people within the EU free-movement regime. Justice O’Regan considered the case similar to another decision involving a marriage-of-convenience finding. She concluded that the applicant had not shown substantial grounds to argue that he was exercising EU Treaty rights in a way that made deportation the wrong procedure.
The applicant also argued that the Minister’s examination of his file was flawed, including in its treatment of his representations and his Article 8 rights to private and family life. The judge said the applicant had not identified Article 8 rights to the Minister and had been given an opportunity to make representations before the deportation order. She found no reasonable chance of successfully arguing that the Minister’s assessment was irrational or that the order could have consequences serious enough to engage Article 8.
The judgment addressed the application for leave to seek judicial review. It did not determine a full judicial review challenge. Having considered the grounds and the court’s discretion at the leave stage, Justice O’Regan refused leave.