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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB/adjudicator conducted a de novo rehearing, made detailed adverse credibility findings supported by reasons, considered all applicable grounds, committed no error of law or procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 103
Parties
Applicant: Tajuddin; 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
26 January 2018
Case Number
HCAL388/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Decision (ord. 53 R. 3)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) Wednesbury Unreasonableness +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajuddin

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 Decision (ord. 53 R. 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TCAB/adjudicator failed to consider the applicant's fear of ill-treatment, fabricated criminal prosecution and state collusion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator erred in law or breached procedural fairness in assessing credibility
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's adverse credibility finding and substantive decision were Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB/adjudicator conducted a de novo rehearing, made detailed adverse credibility findings supported by reasons, considered all applicable grounds, committed no error of law or procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.