The High Court has refused an applicant leave to appeal a July 2016 decision that rejected his challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke a deportation order.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered two questions the applicant proposed for certification as matters of exceptional public importance. Certification would have allowed him to seek an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The first question concerned whether, when deciding an application to revoke a deportation order, the Minister had to explain why country-of-origin information did not assist the applicant, or whether referring to that information was enough.
The judge refused to certify it. He said the Supreme Court had already held that a decision need not narratively discuss every factor it purports to consider where there is no evidence to the contrary. He also noted that a similar question had already been certified in another case, with an appeal pending. In addition, he found that a different answer would not have changed the result: the country information the applicant wanted discussed appeared to add little, if anything, to his case.
The second proposed question asked whether the Minister had a duty to remove someone after making a deportation order, whether delay could cause the order to lapse, and whether a person could develop a private life in the State that had to be considered in assessing proportionality.
The judge said the question was framed too broadly to have a precise answer. He also found that the applicant’s written submissions identified no conflict in legal authority or uncertainty requiring resolution. The judgment cited Supreme Court authority that the passage of time did not displace the Minister’s intention that the applicant leave, and appellate decisions on the limited weight of private-life rights where a person’s immigration status is precarious.
The court’s order was limited to refusing leave to appeal the 29 July 2016 decision to the Court of Appeal. It did not reopen the earlier ruling, which had refused to quash the Minister’s decision not to revoke the deportation order. The judgment states that the applicant’s asylum claim had been refused and that the refusal was not challenged; it also says his refoulement claim had been rejected.
The applicant was identified only as S.A. The judgment does not name him.