An application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed as the claimant had argued matters which had not been in his grounds of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and proceedings for judicial review had no prospect of success.Application by the claimant ('W') for permission to proceed in a claim for judicial review. W was a citizen of Jamaica who arrived in the United Kingdom in April 2002 using an invalid passport. He was subsequently arrested in June 2002 and at that stage made a claim for asylum. The secretary of state refused W's claim for asylum both pursuant to the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights ('the Convention'). W appealed to an adjudicator from the refusal of his asylum claim and challenged the issuance by the secretary of state of a certificate pursuant to Sch.4, para.9(3)(b) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which would have had the effect of preventing an appeal from the adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal ('IAT'). The adjudicator dismissed W's appeal from the refusal of his asylum claim but did not uphold the secretary of state's certificate. The basis of W's claim for asylum was that there had been a vendetta against him by a police officer in Jamaica as a result of his relationship with a woman who had since died in 1999. The adjudicator rejected the contention that any ill-treatment which W had suffered had been for a Convention reason and came to the conclusion that, in the event of W's return to Jamaica, he would not face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Arts.2 and 3 of the Convention. W applied for leave to appeal to the IAT. The IAT considered W's proposed grounds of appeal from the adjudicator's decision and refused leave to appeal. Accordingly, W brought proceedings for judicial review.HELD: (1) A large part of the argument heard on behalf of W strayed a long way from the grounds of appeal to the IAT. Under R v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Immigration Appeals Tribunal, ex parte Robinson (1998) QB 929, it was not the duty of the IAT to take points on behalf of a prospective appellant seeking leave to appeal which were not contained in the written grounds unless such points were obvious. Whether one applied rule 18(6) Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 SI 2000/2333 (L.21) or Robinson (supra), it was not open to W to rely upon matters which had not been in his grounds of appeal to the IAT. (2) The adjudicator had not placed too much reliance upon the civil and justice system in Jamaica. He had had proper regard to the features of that system as he had been entitled to do. (3) The adjudicator had paid regard to the report by Amnesty International criticising Jamaica's civil and judicial system and had made his own findings. (4) There had been nothing in the grounds of appeal to the IAT which ought to have caused that tribunal to grant leave to appeal and no error of law could be detected in the refusal of leave to appeal. (5) The adjudicator had reached a fair and balanced decision, assessed W's evidence with some care and reached an overall conclusion which had been open to him. The matters which he had placed particular emphasis on had all been matters which could properly have lead him to the conclusion that W would not face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Arts.2 or 3 of the Convention in the event of return to Jamaica. (6) These proceedings for judicial review had no prospect of success and therefore permission to apply for judicial review was refused.Application dismissed.
 EWHC 1280 (Admin)