The High Court has dismissed two related judicial review applications brought by members of an Albanian Roma family challenging decisions to refuse subsidiary protection and make deportation orders. The applicants had already been deported by the time of the judgment.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 19 April 2018. The cases were brought by two applicant groups: H.I. and H.I (Albania), and A.I., B.I. and H.I., a minor suing through his father and next friend, A.I. The judgment describes the family as members of the Gabel community.
The family members had applied for asylum, but their applications were rejected at first instance and on appeal. The judgment says significant credibility findings were made on appeal against the adult applicants. Their applications for subsidiary protection were also refused, and deportation orders were made.
Although the statements of grounds challenged the asylum refusals, counsel for the applicants disclaimed that challenge. The relief pursued was therefore limited to certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusals and deportation decisions. The only ground challenging the deportation orders was that the subsidiary protection refusal was invalid.
For the applicants, counsel argued that the Minister’s conclusions about the availability of state protection did not follow from the country material cited. The judge rejected that argument, referring to an earlier High Court decision concerning officials’ familiarity with country conditions. He also said the decision rested independently on the lack of credibility in the applicants’ account.
Counsel also raised the son’s explanation for why the tribunal’s credibility findings should not be followed, while accepting that this point had not been pleaded. The judge said the applicable principle was that material could be treated as considered where the decision-maker stated that it had been considered, even if it was not discussed in detail. He found that the applicants had not shown otherwise.
The court dismissed both applications. The judgment does not set out any further order.