The High Court refused a mother and her three children leave to bring judicial review proceedings over the Minister’s refusal to revoke their deportation orders to Nigeria.
The leave hearing took place on 5 November 2010. In a judgment delivered on 15 December, Mr Justice Ryan said the applicants had not made out an arguable case that the Minister failed to exercise his function properly under section 3(11) of the Refugee Act.
The case concerned new deportation orders made on 9 April 2009, after the Minister reconsidered the family’s claims for subsidiary protection and leave to remain following an earlier factual error. The family’s new solicitor sent the Minister a letter that day, with representations about the risks of return and about the children’s education and healthcare. It included about 21 country information documents, totalling approximately 250 pages.
The Minister treated the letter as an application to revoke the orders and refused it in a decision communicated on 17 April 2009. The applicants argued that the Minister had selectively used country information and had not adequately considered their submissions, including their claim that return could expose them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Justice Ryan said the Minister’s inquiry on a request to revoke a deportation order was narrower than the earlier asylum process. The Minister had to consider the reasons for revocation fairly and check whether circumstances had changed in a way that engaged legal restrictions on return. He was not required to reopen the whole case or conduct a new investigation.
The judge said the Minister’s file analysis and assessment of the country material were open to criticism. However, the material was general and not specific to the applicants, and the dossier did not show significant changes in their personal circumstances or in conditions in Nigeria. The Minister could conclude that the new information disclosed no changed circumstances or other exceptional consideration.
The court’s decision was limited to whether the applicants had an arguable case for leave to seek judicial review. It did not grant leave; the application was refused.