Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: IAT 2003

The tribunal asked as to the relevance of the possible mistreatment of the applicant if returned to his home country: ‘The reason why flagrant denial or gross violation is to be taken into account is that it is only in such a case – where the right will be completely denied or nullified in the destination country – that it can be said that removal will breach the treaty obligations of the signatory state however those obligations might be interpreted or whatever might be said by or on behalf of the destination state’.


Mr C M G Ockelton, deputy president, Mr Allen and Mr Moulden


[2003] Imm AR 1, [2002] IAT 702

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedSK (Guidance on Application of Devaseelan) Serbia and Montenegro IAT 5-Oct-2004
. .
CitedEN (Abandonment, First Decision Nullity, Devaseelan Applied) Cameroon IAT 20-Oct-2005
. .
CitedEM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
ApprovedKapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.198261