RA (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- ANDREW THOMAS QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a judicial review claim by a Nigerian national challenging the certification of his asylum and human rights claims as 'clearly unfounded', which barred him from appealing in-country. The court examined the validity of the certification and whether the Defendant properly considered medical evidence indicating severe depression and suicide threats. The court upheld the certification, determining the decision was neither irrational nor lacking regard to the evidence, and found that the high threshold of Article 3 violations was not met. The claim was dismissed, and the injunction against the Claimant's removal was lifted.
Andrew Thomas QC:
This is a claim for judicial review relating to the Defendant’s decision to certify, or purport to certify, the Claimant’s asylum and human rights claims as ‘clearly unfounded’ thereby preventing him from exercising an in-country right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.
The Claimant has made repeated threats to kill himself if he is returned to Nigeria. He relies upon medical evidence which states that he has been diagnosed as suffering from severe depression. Both the diagnosis of severe depression and the authenticity of the threats are disputed by the Defendant. The views of the Claimant’s own expert were contradicted by two other Consultant Psychiatrists.
This is not a challenge to the substantive decision. The issue is whether, notwithstanding her rejection of his claim, the Defendant should have accepted that the Claimant had a prospect of successfully appealing her decision to the First Tier Tribunal.
Background
The Claimant is now 38 years of age. He first came to the United Kingdom in 2012 aged 35 on a six months visitor’s visa. He arrived on about the 29 th of January 2012. One week later he was arrested whilst attempting to take an onward flight to France. He was found to be travelling on a false passport. In April 2012 he was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of possession of identity documents with intent and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
It is common ground that by reason of this conviction the Claimant is a ‘foreign criminal’ within the meaning of Section 32 of the . There are two relevant consequences: UK Borders Act 2007
pursuant to Section 32(4), there is a presumption that the Claimant’s deportation is conducive to the public good; and
pursuant to Section 32(5), the Secretary of State must make a deportation order unless one of the statutory exceptions under Section 33 is made out.
Section 33 contains six different forms of exception. The Claimant relies upon Exception 1, which applies in cases where deportation would breach a person’s Convention rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
On 30 th April 2012 the Claimant was served with a notice inviting him to show reasons why a deportation order should not be made. On 8 th May 2012 he made a claim for asylum.
The Claimant gave an account of the events which led to him coming to the UK. The Defendant does not accept the truth of this account, but it has never been the subject of an adverse adjudication.
The Claimant states that