Majera, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a judicial review of the Defendant's decision to deport the Plaintiff from the United Kingdom pursuant to a deportation order dated 8 November 2006, following the Plaintiff's unsuccessful appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Defendant received multiple submissions on the Plaintiff's behalf but consistently refused to revoke the deportation order or treat new submissions as fresh claims with a right of appeal. Permission for judicial review was granted on 22 May 2008, and a further decision letter was issued by the Defendant on 9 September 2008.

The Plaintiff is a Rwandan national of Hutu ethnicity, with disputed dates of birth: the Plaintiff claims 1989, while the Defendant asserts 1986. The Plaintiff arrived in the United Kingdom in 1997 with family and was granted exceptional leave to remain in 2001. The Plaintiff has a significant criminal record, including aggravated burglary involving a confrontation at knife point. The Defendant decided that deportation was conducive to the public good following the Plaintiff’s conviction in 2005. The Plaintiff appealed on grounds including age dispute and alleged human rights breaches.

The immigration judge found, after detailed examination of documentary evidence and witness credibility, that the Plaintiff was born in 1986 and was therefore an adult at the time of sentencing and deportation decision. The judge found the Plaintiff and his mother not credible, noting inconsistencies and unreliability in their evidence regarding the Plaintiff’s date of birth.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the new representations and material submitted on the Plaintiff’s behalf create a realistic prospect of success such that the Defendant was not entitled to conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success on a further claim before the Tribunal.
2. Whether the Defendant properly considered all relevant material, including new evidence relating to the Plaintiff’s age and treatment by social services and educational authorities.
3. The appropriate application of the two-stage test from WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning whether new material is significantly different and whether it creates a realistic prospect of success.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s representatives argued that the psychiatric report on the Plaintiff’s mother explains her unreliability as a witness, potentially undermining the Defendant’s case on the Plaintiff’s date of birth.
• The Plaintiff submitted a new expert opinion on age assessment, suggesting the Plaintiff could be younger than the Defendant asserts.
• The Plaintiff contended that the new evidence, including social services and educational records from 2003, supports the Plaintiff’s claimed date of birth in 1989 and should be considered by the Defendant and the Tribunal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Defendant maintained that the psychiatric report is based on unreliable evidence from the Plaintiff’s mother and does not provide positive evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claimed date of birth.
• The Defendant argued that the age assessment expert report does not definitively support the Plaintiff’s claim and may, in fact, support the Defendant’s position.
• The Defendant relied on the immigration judge’s detailed findings, emphasizing the overwhelming documentary evidence supporting the 1986 birth date and the Plaintiff’s and mother’s lack of credibility.
• The Defendant contended that the fresh claims procedure is not a substitute for an appeal and that the new evidence does not create a reasonable prospect of success.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1495	Two-stage test for fresh claims: (1) whether new material is significantly different; (2) whether it creates a realistic prospect of success.	The court applied this test to assess whether the Defendant was entitled to refuse reconsideration of the Plaintiff’s claim based on new submissions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the Defendant’s decision in light of the two-stage test from WM (DRC). The Defendant had to determine if the new material was significantly different from previously submitted evidence and whether it created a realistic prospect of success if reconsidered by the Tribunal.

The court acknowledged the substantial criminal record of the Plaintiff and the immigration judge's detailed findings that the Plaintiff was born in 1986, based on overwhelming documentary evidence and the lack of credibility of the Plaintiff and his mother. The court found the psychiatric report on the mother unhelpful because it relied on her own unreliable evidence.

The independent expert age assessment report was found inconclusive and did not assist the court in resolving the age dispute definitively.

Crucially, the court gave significant weight to new evidence from a 2003 Child Protection Review Conference and related social services and educational records, which consistently recorded the Plaintiff’s date of birth as in 1989 and showed that various authorities treated the Plaintiff as a minor during that period.

The court held that the Defendant erred by failing to take into account this supporting evidence and the implications of the Plaintiff having been treated as younger than the Defendant’s asserted birth year. These omissions were important because such factors could influence a Tribunal’s assessment of whether deportation was appropriate.

Therefore, the court concluded the Defendant was not entitled to find that the Plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of success on a further claim before the Tribunal, given the fresh material.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s right of appeal from abroad would not be an adequate alternative remedy in this context.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the claim for judicial review and made the orders sought by the Plaintiff.

This decision requires the Defendant to reconsider the Plaintiff’s case in light of the new evidence, including the 2003 social services and educational records, and the implications of the Plaintiff’s treatment as a minor for a significant period. The ruling does not establish new legal precedent but directly affects the parties by mandating reconsideration of the deportation decision and recognizing the importance of comprehensive evidence assessment in such cases.