RIZWAN RAJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RIZWAN RAJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, gave adequate reasons, the applicant's account contained material inconsistencies and was implausible, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the applicant's claim had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1268
Parties
Applicant: Rizwan Raja; 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
HCAL557/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Refused leave to apply for judicial review
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Convention Protection, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Convention Protection Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) +2 more

Case Brief

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rizwan Raja

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 applicant faced a real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC and Convention Against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced CIDTP contrary to Article 3 BOR/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicant faced persecution under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, gave adequate reasons, the applicant's account contained material inconsistencies and was implausible, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the applicant's claim had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Refused leave to apply for judicial review

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused