KHATUN ASMA AND ANOTHER v. S.J. GEISER, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KHATUN ASMA AND ANOTHER v. S.J. GEISER, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board and Director lawfully found the risk to be localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available; the applicants' grounds were vague and unparticularised and did not show an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2101
Parties
1st Applicant: Khatun Asma; 2nd Applicant: Morad Jannatul Ferdush Moreom; 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
21 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL34/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Proof, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khatun Asma

1st Applicant

Morad Jannatul Ferdush Moreom

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe return to Bangladesh would expose applicants to real risk of torture, death or other serious violations (non-refoulement)
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director committed procedural impropriety or unfairness (late disclosure of bundle, inadequate legal representation, failure to obtain psychological reports)

Ratio Decidendi

The Board and Director lawfully found the risk to be localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available; the applicants' grounds were vague and unparticularised and did not show an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.