The High Court has dismissed an Algerian man’s challenge to a deportation order and the Minister for Justice’s later refusal to revoke it, ruling that the Minister was not bound by a Refugee Appeals Tribunal finding made during his unsuccessful application for subsidiary protection.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys held that the Minister had lawfully concluded, on updated country information and the applicant’s personal circumstances, that deportation would not expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court did not decide that the applicant could be removed immediately: it continued a stay on actual removal pending determination of any application for leave to appeal or further order.
The applicant, whose identity remains protected, had been convicted of terrorism-related offences in Algeria and France. The tribunal had rejected his subsidiary protection claim under an exclusion clause, but also stated that there was a personal and substantial risk of serious harm if he returned to Algeria. The judge said the tribunal’s conclusion on risk was not clearly reasoned. He ruled that the binding outcome was the rejection of the protection claim, not every finding made along the way; the Minister could independently assess the risk when considering deportation.
The applicant argued that the Minister’s decision was unlawful because it departed from the tribunal’s risk assessment, failed to give adequate notice and reasons, and did not properly address evidence about secret detention and ill-treatment in Algeria. The judge rejected those challenges. He said the Minister had considered updated reports and the applicant’s individual circumstances, including his history of false identities and representations. The judgment also referred to the applicant’s brother, who had a terrorism-related conviction in France and was living in Algeria without the treatment feared by the applicant.
The applicant separately challenged the Minister’s 6 December 2016 decision refusing a request under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to revoke the deportation order. The judge found that the Minister had considered the additional material and applied the correct test. He said some language in that decision was potentially inapposite, but did not taint the assessment of the Article 3 claim.
The court dismissed the application. It continued the stay on removal, which does not prevent detention or other enforcement of the deportation order. The restriction on publishing material that could identify the applicant remains permanent; reporting his country of origin remains restricted until further order.