The High Court has quashed an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an Indian man’s appeal for international protection, finding that its assessment of his alleged risk from a man who murdered his uncle was irrational.
In a judgment delivered on 6 May 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the tribunal had accepted that the applicant’s uncle was murdered by a man identified as PJ, who intended to take possession of the uncle’s shop. The tribunal also accepted that the applicant was to inherit the shop.
The applicant said PJ and associates threatened him after he reported the killing to police. He claimed they later found him in Haryana, where he had returned, and threatened him again after he came back from a stay in the United Kingdom. The tribunal rejected parts of his account, citing the distance to Haryana, the lack of detail about threats and concerns about his account of travel and when he learned PJ’s surname.
The court said the tribunal’s decision did not make clear whether it accepted that the applicant had complained to police. That question mattered to its assessment of the alleged threats, the judge said. She also found it difficult to reconcile the tribunal’s doubts about the threats and the applicant’s departure from India with its accepted findings that PJ had killed the uncle over property the applicant was entitled to inherit, and that the applicant had identified PJ as the killer.
The judge stressed that judicial review examines the decision-making process rather than acting as an appeal on the merits. She found that the tribunal had failed to consider the significance of its own findings, making its conclusion that the applicant was not at risk from PJ irrational.
The applicant had also claimed he feared persecution because he is gay. The tribunal accepted his sexual orientation but found he would not face persecution in India, taking account of a 2018 Indian Supreme Court decision decriminalising homosexual acts and country information. The High Court held that this was a finding available to the tribunal and found no error on that issue.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the tribunal’s decision and awarded the applicant his costs against the respondent. The judgment did not itself grant international protection or determine the applicant’s ultimate protection claim.