The High Court has refused an application to quash a deportation decision concerning a Pakistani man who had already been deported to Pakistan. The case was a judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision of 3 April 2012. Ms Justice Faherty held that the decision had not been vitiated by an error of law requiring the court’s intervention.
The applicant argued that the Minister had wrongly treated divorce as a remedy for his stated fear of being forced into an arranged marriage. He also challenged the conclusion that he could relocate within Pakistan, saying no feasible destination had been identified. His case was that the decision-maker had not adequately assessed the risk of returning him, engaging the statutory prohibition on refoulement.
The court noted that the applicant’s asylum application had been treated as withdrawn after he did not attend an interview. He said he had not received the interview notice because he had changed address. In later representations opposing deportation, he cited family problems, fear of forced marriage, security conditions in Pakistan, his time in Ireland and medical conditions, including depression. The Minister’s file showed that those representations and country-of-origin information had been considered.
The judge concluded that the Minister was required to assess the refoulement question regardless of whether there had been a substantive asylum decision. She found that the decision-maker had considered the applicant’s stated fears and that the rationale for deciding against a bar on deportation could be deduced from the file.
On forced marriage, the applicant’s counsel argued that a person who could be forced into marriage might also be prevented from leaving it, and questioned whether state protection would be available in practice. The judge found no evidence before the court that men generally were victims of forced marriage in Pakistan. Based on the country information considered by the Minister, she found no irrationality in the assessment that forced marriage principally affected women, or in the conclusion that the applicant could divorce unilaterally as a Muslim man if he entered such a marriage.
The court also rejected the internal-relocation challenge. It found that the Minister had considered freedom of movement within Pakistan and the security situation, including reported sectarian flashpoints. The judge found no basis to impugn the conclusion that internal relocation was available or that the applicant’s stated security fears met the relevant test.
The application for judicial review was refused, and the relief sought was denied. The court did not make a new deportation order; it reviewed and upheld the challenged decision.