Wu�s (Jun) Application

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a Chinese national born in 1965, arrived in the United Kingdom in 2003 and later made an asylum claim in 2007, alleging persecution due to opposition to a government hydro-electric dam project in his home village and subsequent mistreatment. His initial asylum claim, along with related claims for humanitarian protection and breach of human rights, was refused by the Home Office in December 2007. The Plaintiff appealed unsuccessfully to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, where the appeal was dismissed by Judge Gillespie in March 2008 due to numerous inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the Plaintiff's account.

In January 2011, the Plaintiff made a further asylum application based on a new ground: persecution due to his Christian faith, which he claimed to have adopted after arriving in the UK. This claim was refused by the Home Office in February 2014, which accepted his Christian practice but did not consider it would cause persecution if returned to China. The Plaintiff appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, where Judge Fox rejected his appeal in April 2014, finding the Plaintiff's story not credible and concluding he was an economic migrant. The Plaintiff's subsequent applications for leave to appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal were refused in May and July 2014. Removal directions were issued in August 2014, but the Plaintiff commenced judicial review proceedings, resulting in a stay of removal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Judge Fox erred in law in rejecting the Plaintiff's asylum claim and related matters.
2. Whether the refusals of leave to appeal by the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tier Tribunal were unlawful for failing to identify errors of law in Judge Fox's decision.
3. Whether the removal directions consequent on the refusal of leave to appeal should be set aside.
4. Whether the Plaintiff's practice of Christianity in the UK places him at real risk of persecution if returned to China, in light of relevant country guidance.
5. Whether the application for judicial review meets the criteria established in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal for permission to proceed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that his Christian faith and unregistered church membership in China expose him to a real risk of persecution if returned.
• He asserted he is on a blacklist due to anti-government activities linked to his religious practice.
• The Plaintiff argued that obtaining a hukou upon return would expose him to hostile government officials and increase his risk.
• The Plaintiff challenged the refusal of leave to appeal, alleging errors of law in the decision of Judge Fox and the tribunals refusing leave.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Home Office and tribunals maintained that the Plaintiff's claims lacked credibility and that there was no real risk of persecution based on religion in China.
• They relied on country guidance indicating the general safety of Christians practicing their faith in China, whether in state-registered or unregistered churches.
• The Home Office noted the absence of medical evidence supporting the Plaintiff's claims of depression and considered treatment would be available in China.
• It was argued that the Plaintiff's failure to raise religious persecution in earlier proceedings undermined his current claims.
• The refusal of leave to appeal was defended on the basis that the Cart criteria for judicial review were not met.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28	Criteria for granting leave to appeal judicial decisions after refusals by lower tribunals.	Applied to assess whether the Plaintiff's application for judicial review met the threshold of raising important points of principle or compelling reasons.
Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60	Definition of an important point of principle or practice in judicial review context.	Referenced to clarify that the issue must be of general importance beyond the individual's circumstances.
Eba [2011] UKSC 29	Requirement that important points must be of general importance, not confined to individual facts.	Supported the court's view that the Plaintiff's issues were specific and not of wider significance.
PR (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 988	Explanation of the narrowness of "some other compelling reason" to grant leave for judicial review.	Used to emphasize the high threshold for compelling reasons and the need for strong arguability of error or procedural collapse.
JD Congo [2012] EWCA Civ 327	Clarification that extreme consequences alone do not constitute a compelling reason for judicial review.	Reinforced the court's position that personal hardship is insufficient for leave.
A and Others Application [2012] NIQB 86	Application of Cart criteria in Northern Ireland jurisdiction.	Confirmed the applicability of the Cart criteria locally.
DJ1 and DJ2s Application [2013] NIQB 20	Further application of Cart criteria in Northern Ireland.	Supported the court's approach to judicial review leave applications.
Country Guidance QH (Christians Risk) [2014] UKUT 00086 (IAC)	Assessment of risk to Christians practicing faith in China.	Provided authoritative context on the low general risk of persecution for Christians in China, informing the court's evaluation of the Plaintiff's claims.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the Plaintiff's claims and the extensive procedural history, focusing on the legal standards for granting leave to apply for judicial review under the Cart criteria. It noted that the Plaintiff's allegations were largely unsubstantiated, including assertions of being blacklisted and at risk due to his Christian faith. The court relied heavily on recent country guidance indicating that Christians in China, including those in unregistered churches, generally face a very low risk of persecution. The court found no credible evidence that the Plaintiff's practice of Christianity would expose him to significant risk or that he was a proselytiser likely to attract government attention.

The court also emphasized that the Plaintiff's claims were specific to his circumstances and did not raise any important points of principle or practice of general importance. It found no procedural irregularity or compelling reason to override the refusals of leave to appeal by the tribunals. The court concluded that the application for judicial review did not meet the high threshold required, particularly given the absence of evidence supporting the Plaintiff's assertions and the prior tribunal findings rejecting the credibility of his account.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's application for judicial review, concluding that the Cart criteria for granting leave were not satisfied.

The direct effect of this decision is that the refusals of leave to appeal by the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tier Tribunal stand, and the removal directions issued by the Home Office remain valid. The court did not set any new precedent and emphasized the importance of respecting the tribunal process and the high threshold for judicial review in such immigration cases.