The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a refusal to review an immigration decision and a subsequent deportation order, and released the respondents from an undertaking not to enforce the order.
In a judgment delivered on 25 September 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys held that the proceedings were covered by the short time limit in section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. He said the application was out of time, but made clear that he did not need to base his order on that issue because he rejected the case on its merits.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.W.K. (Pakistan), sought to quash a 15 March 2018 decision refusing a review under section 49(9) of the International Protection Act 2015, as well as the consequential deportation order made on 8 May 2018. He also sought an order requiring the Minister to consider a further review request he had made on 3 May 2018.
The judge rejected the claim that the Minister had failed to consider the applicant’s submissions. The decision under challenge said the submissions had been considered, and the judge found the applicant had not shown otherwise. He noted that the decision referred to material including the applicant’s education and qualifications, character references, job offer, voluntary work and involvement in groups. He said a decision-maker was not required to discuss every submission at length, and found the allegation that the material had been disregarded unsustainable.
The court also rejected the request for a second review under section 49(9). The judge said the provision allowed one such review following receipt of the tribunal decision, and described the further attempt as legally baseless. He added that the applicant had sought the wrong relief in relation to the refusal to consider that later request. If circumstances fundamentally changed after the review, he said, section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 provided a possible remedy.
The judgment records that the applicant’s international protection appeal was dismissed in October 2017 and that his review request was refused in March 2018. The court’s order dismissed the proceedings and released the respondents from their undertaking not to enforce the deportation order.