JOSEPH BABU IRUTHYARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

JOSEPH BABU IRUTHYARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The adjudicator's factual findings were credible and lawfully applied to the relevant statutory and human rights tests; there was no error of law, no procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1266
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Babu Iruthyaraj; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL399/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution (refugee Law), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Bill of Rights/iccpr
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution (refugee Law) +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Babu Iruthyaraj

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture as defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance and Article 1 CAT
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of CIDTP under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether there was a persecution risk under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's factual findings were credible and lawfully applied to the relevant statutory and human rights tests; there was no error of law, no procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review