RANBIR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

1.   1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Board as the putative respondent, the Director of Immigration as putative interested party and the Board’s decision dated 22 October 2021 to be the decision sought to be reviewed; and

2.   The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 2 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 22 October 2021. According to a copy of the decision attached to his supporting affirmation (“the Board’s Decision”), the decision sought to be reviewed was actually made by Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) pursuant to a petition/appeal from the DI’s decision dated 29 May 2020.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].  On my own motion, I amend the Form 86 under paragraph 1 of the above orders.

2.  According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a dispute between him and his girlfriend’s family members opposing to their marriage because of difference in religious faith.  It was also said the girl’s father was closely connected to a member of the Legislative Assembly.  After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not credible as certain important aspects of his claim were first mentioned during the hearing but not in the papers previously filed.  Moreover, the Applicant’s delay in making a claim caused the Board to believe that he was not in actual fear of ill-treatment.

3.  The Board therefore found no real risk of ill-treatment under the applicable grounds, and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision.  It was also mentioned in passing that the Applicant had a reasonable internal relocation alternative in India.

4.  The Applicant only said his claim had not been carefully considered in the supporting affirmation without giving any particulars; the Applicant mentioned no actual ground of judicial review in the documents filed.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.  In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues. 

5.  This application for leave to apply for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1