Member Login

Decision refusing Malawian national leave to remain was lawful

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses judicial review of decision refusing Malawian national’s application for leave to remain, on the grounds that all relevant information was considered, the Minister for Justice was entitled to rely on adverse decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, and the decision complied with the statutory provision prohibiting refoulement.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Malawian national challenging the decision refusing him permission to remain – applied for asylum - failed to attend for interview on two occasions – application deemed to be withdrawn - then provided an explanation for his non-attendance and was given a new interview date which fell after the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015 – applied for subsidiary protection – application refused – refused permission to remain - prohibition of refoulement - appeal of international protection decision refused – no review sought of remain decision – review of remain decision - no further information – notified of the decision - decision was appropriate although mis-headed - trivialise judicial review to quash a decision simply because there is some infelicity in the drafting of a heading - alleged failure to have regard to all circumstances and relevant country material - decision-maker says that all relevant information was considered - failed to make any submissions following the refusal of international protection - alleged failure to disclose what country material was considered - alleged non-entitlement to rely on the IPAT decision - not correct to say that the Minister, in making a deportation order or refusing permission to remain, cannot rely on protection decisions including IPAT decisions - alleged non-compliance with the provision prohibiting refoulement not a ground for judicial review as such in that it does not specify any legally cognizable error of any particular kind – compliance with the provision prohibiting refoulement established – judicial review refused.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *