RJ (AP) & Anor, Re Judicial Review

[2] On 14 April 2009, while resident in India, the first petitioner applied for and was granted a United Kingdom visit visa for himself and his first wife, and they travelled to this country in the same month. She returned to India after four or five months and they were subsequently divorced. The visa expired on 14 October 2009, but the first petitioner remained here. According to the petitioners' averments, the first petitioner took part in an Indian marriage ceremony with the second petitioner at a temple in Birmingham, on 20 June 2011.

[3] On 24 March 2012, the first petitioner was arrested by Staffordshire Police during a domestic dispute. On the same day, he was served with a notice informing him that he was liable to removal from the United Kingdom, as a person who had overstayed his period of granted leave. By fax, dated 4 May 2012, solicitors acting for the first petitioner submitted an asylum claim on his behalf. It is averred that the second petitioner is a dependent on his claim.

[6] The competency of adopting that course, submitted Mr McIlvride, was vouched by the decision in H K Petitioner [2009] CSOH 35 . I did not understand counsel for the petitioners, Mr Winter, advocate, to contend that it would not be competent to do so.

"The petitioners fear ill-treatment from the second petitioner's family based on their marriage. The first petitioner is Sikh and the second petitioner is Hindu. The petitioners have been threatened by the second petitioner's family on the basis that they disapprove of the mixed marriage. The petitioners also fear being at real risk from the general community based on their mixed marriage."

[9] The Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006 ("the 2006 Regulations"), were enacted in part implementation of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004. They adopt the Refugee Convention definition of "refugee", and provide, among other things, as follows: