MEHMOOD ARSHAD 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.   The Form 86 be amended to add the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 18 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 29 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].  On my own motion, the DI is joined as a putative interested party to these proceedings.

2.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national.  His non-refoulement claim was based on a risk of harm from the people associated with Awami National Party (“ANP”). He claimed that he had not been associated with any political party himself, but was accused of a crime he did not commit and got in trouble with the ANP people.  After an oral hearing with intense questioning and answering, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible.  The Board’s reasons included the Applicant’s lack of basic understanding about ANP and politics in Pakistan in general.  In any event, the Board also assessed that, even on the basis of the Applicant’s assertions, the extent of harm the ANP people had attempted to inflict on the Applicant was not significant.  Coupled with country information showing that ANP was not a major party in Pakistan or the Applicant’s province, his future risk of being ill-treated was found to be low.  There was also a finding of reasonable internal relocation alternative. The petition/appeal was thus dismissed.

3.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant said he has nothing to supplement. 

4.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by public law errors.  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 therefore 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