Minister carefully and properly considered all matters prior to making deportation order

Judicial review – Somali national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to issue a deportation order against him - preliminary issues – whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable – whether the grounding affidavit is admissible as the Somali national does not speak English – rules require that where deponents are illiterate or blind, the affidavit be read to them to ensure that they understand its contents – correct approach is that the affidavit should be sworn originally by the applicant in the language he speaks - this should be translated by an appropriately qualified translator, and both the original and the certified translation should be put in evidence as exhibits to an affidavit in English sworn by the translator – procedure not followed – Somali national’s solicitor swore affidavits as to his knowledge of English and understanding of the proceedings – Somali national claimed to be a member of the Bajuni ethnic - claimed that he fled Somalia with his brother due to persecution by an Islamist militia - UK Border Agency provided information which indicated that his fingerprints matched those of a Tanzanian national who had successfully applied for a visa to visit the UK for medical treatment – argued that too much reliance was placed on the UK border agency fingerprint match and had insufficient regard to the other matters put forward – Somali national lacked knowledge in relation to Somalia - language analysis based on a recording of the Somali national found that he speaks a variety of Swahili found in Kenya – refused asylum – applied for humanitarian leave to remain on the basis of his need for treatment for his leukaemia – Minister refused applications for subsidiary protection and leave to remain – Somali national sent a medical report outlining his grave medical condition – this report was received after the deportation order was made – he argued that the Minister failed to address relevant considerations and/or considered irrelevant considerations and in particular the situation in Tanzania – argued that the Minister failed to consider the detailed submissions on the issue of whether a UK visa could be issued in Tanzania for a person such as the applicant using a false passport – argued that the finding that the applicant was certainly Tanzanian on the basis of the UK visa application only, when there was no further information to suggest he was Tanzanian, and when the language he speaks indicated otherwise, was unreasonable – argued that the Minister failed to consider the second medical report – argued that the finding that the country of origin information indicated that treatment for the applicant’s condition is available in Tanzania does not follow from the country of origin information reports and the position in Somalia was not considered at all – argued that the Minister failed to consider adequately, or at all, whether deportation would violate the applicant’s right to life and his right to protection against inhuman and degrading treatment – lack of fair procedures point not pleaded - Minister argued that at all stages, the relevant officials gave due consideration to all matters - elements which determine whether or not a violation of the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment.