A Nigerian man who suffers from glaucoma has lost his High Court challenge to the Minister for Justice’s refusal to grant him permission to remain here on medical grounds.
The man developed glaucoma — a disease that damages the eye’s optic nerve — about 2008 and appeared to have left Nigeria for the purpose of getting superior medical treatment, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said.
He first went to the UK on a visa in June 2011 where he gave a date of birth in 1972 and then came here unlawfully in September 2011, giving a date of birth in 1975, the judge noted. He also claimed to have subsequently had a “complete memory loss” which prevented him providing details in support of his claim.
After being refused asylum, subsidiary protection and permission to remain here, he sought a review by the Minister over being refused permission to remain. When the review upheld the original refusal, he took judicial review proceedings in the High Court.
In a recently published judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys rejected arguments the Minister erred in law, fettered his discretion or engaged in unfairness in how he considered the man’s private and family life rights and in how the review was conducted.
He dismissed claims the Minister erred in law in adopting a finding of the International Protection Office the man’s medical condition did not meet the threshold for establishing a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Addressing claims of interference with respect to the man’s private life rights under Article 8 of the ECHR on the basis of his medical condition, the judge said the Minister’s view the medical condition does not engage Article 8 was a decision lawfully open to him.
This was so particularly so in circumstances where no independent firmly-established Article 8 rights in the State had been demonstrated, he said.
Given the man’s status as an “unsettled migrant” at all material times, it is “axiomatic” the deportation of such a migrant breaches Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances, he said.
He also rejected arguments the Minister erred in how he concluded, if returned to Nigeria, there was no threat to the man’s life or freedom for ECHR reasons and no risk of serious harm.
For reasons including the man had not made any submissions regarding his forcible return to Nigeria, the Minister, when conducting the review, was not required to have regard to certain country of origin information relating to training facilities for disabled persons in Nigeria and State assistance to help people with disabilities become self-supporting. Even if the man could make such an argument, it was “of no substance”, he held.
There is no right, except in “exceptional circumstances”, for any person to remain in the State indefinitely on the basis they have significant medical needs which can be better met here than in their own country and without any other qualification, such as family presence or prior connection with the State, he said. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case, the judge said.
