Deportation order was based on lawful consideration of principle of non-refoulement

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – national from Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to order her deportation - applied for a UK visa in a false name - visa application was not disclosed in her original asylum application – refused asylum on grounds of a lack of credibility – refused subsidiary protection and leave to remain – refused judicial review by the High Court – deportation order – second judicial review – proceedings settled and deportation order revoked – Minister issued a deportation order – she initiated judicial review proceedings - Minister relied on credibility finding of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Minister was satisfied that there was no sufficient risk of refoulement – refoulement - the adequacy of the Minister’s consideration of the principle of non-refoulement - country of origin information – argued that the Minister’s decision was unlawful because she failed to reconsider the credibility conclusions of the tribunal - in subsidiary protection, it is well established that the Minister is required to form a fresh view of credibility rather than simply to consider herself bound by the tribunal’s findings - leave to remain is part of the executive power of the State in controlling immigration, and not a specific international protection process governed by EU law, it does not follow that the Minister is under an obligation to reconsider findings in the asylum process at the stage of making a deportation order - Minister did not blindly follow the finding but gave a reason for doing so – argued that the Minister failed to consider the risk of gender based violence in D.R.C. and a medical report from SPIRASI testifying to mental trauma and scarring she has suffered - risks to returned failed asylum seekers in D.R.C – whether there was a failure to consider country of origin information – Minister’s findings were lawful but could have been better worded - whether the Minister should not have relied on a piece of country of origin information - country of origin information would support the proposition that many or even all D.R.C. returnees who are failed asylum seekers are detained for a short period on arrival - Minister did not make a specific finding on this - reasons for a decision should be sufficiently apparent – from the decision overall, one can infer that the Minister was not persuaded by such elements of the information as were supportive of her claim that the prohibition against refoulement was engaged - brief routine detention on arrival would fall outside prohibition against refoulement.