Decision refusing Malawian national leave to remain was lawful

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permission to remain – applied for asylum - failed to attend for interview on two occasions – application deemed to be withdrawn - then provided an explanation for his non-attendance and was given a new interview date which fell after the commencement of the International Protection Act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.