7.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sheffield, the United Kingdom, where he moved in February 2010. 8.  In 1998 the applicant, who had enrolled at a university in the State of Missouri, entered the United States of America on a student visa. However, he later abandoned his studies and took up paid employment. In January 2000 the authorities, considering that he had thereby infringed the terms and conditions of his visa, opened deportation proceedings against him. He was deported to Bulgaria on 29 October 2003. 9.  Meanwhile, in April 2000 the applicant’s mother married an American national. In May 2000 she became a permanent resident of the United States of America and later became a United States national. The applicant’s brother also resided permanently there. 10.  By an order of 29 October 2003, the Head of the Border Police Service of the Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs, acting pursuant to section 76(6) of the Identity Papers Act 1998 (see paragraph 17 below), and having regard to a letter from the Ministry’s International Cooperation Division, with which was enclosed a letter from the embassy of the United States of America, imposed a two-year travel ban on the applicant, starting on 20 October 2003, and directed the competent authorities to seize his passport. Accordingly, on 4 November 2003 the Burgas police ordered the applicant to surrender his passport. 11.  The applicant sought judicial review of the order, arguing, inter alia, that the administrative authorities had erred in not taking into account his personal situation and choosing to exercise their discretion against him. 12.  On 11 May 2004 the Sofia City Court dismissed the application. It held, inter alia, that in issuing the order the authorities had taken into account all the relevant facts, namely, that the applicant had been deported and that the Bulgarian authorities had been informed of this. The reasons for the deportation and the personal circumstances of the applicant were immaterial, as was the possibility of his receiving another visa allowing him to re‑enter the United States of America. The order had been consistent with the aim of the law, which was to impede Bulgarian citizens who had breached the immigration rules of foreign countries from travelling freely. 13.  The applicant appealed on points of law, reiterating his argument that the authorities should have taken account of his individual circumstances. 14.  In a final judgment of 30 March 2005 (реш. № 2952 от 30 март 2005 г. по адм. д. № 6206/2004 г., ВАС, V о.), the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It held, inter alia, that section 76(6) of the Identity Papers Act 1998 gave the authorities discretion to impose or refrain from imposing the impugned measure, and their choice in this matter was not reviewable by the courts. In the case of the applicant, the authorities had had regard to all the relevant circumstances and had determined that the measure was called for.