Member Login

No invalidity established concerning refusal of leave to remain or deportation order

By: James Cross BL

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

High Court refuses judicial review of the decision by the Minister for Justice to refuse a Georgian national leave to remain, and the consequent decision to issue her with a deportation order, on the grounds that the Georgian national had failed to establish any invalidity in the decision where the prohibition of refoulement was considered and the Minister had applied the correct standard of proof.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Georgian national challenging the decisions refusing her leave to remain and ordering her deportation – refused international protection – refused leave to remain – review application – deportation order issued – judicial review proceedings - grounds of challenge - determination of the applicant’s protection claim - refoulement - country of origin information - prohibition of refoulement has been considered - repatriating the applicant to Georgia is not contrary to prohibition of refoulement - statutory provisions relating to permission to remain – court does not accept that the Minister failed to provide reasons for her decision regarding the prohibition of refoulement – arguments not pleaded - ground in respect of which leave was granted - incorrect standard of proof - whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an applicant would face a “real risk” of suffering the death penalty or execution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – argued that a lower standard of proof to that adopted by the international protection bodies should be applied in the First Respondent’s refoulement considerations so as to determine whether a “serious risk” of refoulement arises - Nothing within s. 50(1)(b) of the 2015 Act leads me to the conclusion that an exception to that principle should be made when the Minister is considering the issue of refoulement – correct approach adopted by the Minister - Applicant has not established that a “serious risk” test was not applied by the Minister - incompatibility with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights has not been established - the law establishes that the First Respondent is entitled to rely upon the negative findings of the protection bodies implies that the standard of proof applicable in those decisions also applies to s. 50 of the 2015 Act decisions - Applicant has failed to establish an invalidity with respect to the s. 49(7) decision and the consequent Deportation Order –

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 *