The High Court has refused an applicant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal after an earlier decision declined to quash the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to revoke an unchallenged deportation order.
In a judgment delivered on 25 January 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered proposed appeal questions concerning the Minister’s handling of an application under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. That provision was invoked in seeking revocation of the deportation order. The court’s earlier decision, in A.B. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1), had refused certiorari of the Minister’s decision.
One proposed question concerned whether new material about the applicant’s relationship with a brother required the Minister to reconsider the family-life assessment made under section 3(6). The material submitted to the Minister included a statement that the applicant was living with his brother and a doctor’s reference to the brother as supportive. The judge said the submissions did not establish the level of dependency that could make deportation unlawful under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or require closer consideration of that issue.
The court also noted that the applicant’s earlier representatives had described him as semi-homeless. The later material did not explain that contradiction or expressly withdraw the earlier statement. The judge said the case advanced to the High Court went beyond what had been put to the Minister.
The judge further held that Supreme Court authority, including P.O. v. Minister for Justice and Equality, made clear that a revocation decision did not oblige the Minister to begin a new investigation or revisit the original section 3 analysis. The applicant had to present his case; the Minister had no free-standing duty to resolve contradictions or identify changes that had not been clearly highlighted and explained.
The other proposed appeal questions were described as variations on the same issue, or as fact-specific points also covered by the Supreme Court authority. The judge considered an alleged conflict in Supreme Court decisions but said the case could be read without a conflict; counsel for the applicant accepted that the point might not arise and did not press it.
The court refused leave to appeal. This ruling concerned permission to appeal the earlier judicial review decision; it did not itself determine a new challenge to the deportation order.