Grounds for judicial review of deportation order were vague and boilerplate

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Bangladeshi national challenging decisions to refuse him subsidiary protection and to order his deportation – claimed that he was a NGO who was attacked when he attempted to mediate a resolution between a rape victim, a perpetrator and some residents – refused asylum – refused subsidiary protection and deportation order made – granted leave – subsequently applied to have the deportation order against him revoked - whether an application to revoke a deportation order acknowledges the validity of the underlying deportation order - either party may in a proper case include in his pleading alternative and inconsistent allegations of material facts, as long as he does so separately and distinctly – legal points already rejected – fact specific points - Minister’s decision involved a process of cut and paste - not appropriate to grant relief on the basis of such vague and boilerplate pleadings as here - decision-maker is entitled to have regard to up-to-date mainstream country information - failure to address the subsidiary protection application rather than the asylum application - the subsidiary protection claim very explicitly states that it relies on the asylum claim - no evidential basis - lack of up-to-date country information - matter requiring positive evidence and is not an issue where inference or submission remotely suffice – judicial review refused.