RUSTAM KHAN AND ANOTHER v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

RUSTAM KHAN AND ANOTHER v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the availability of state protection/internal relocation were rational and supported by evidence, and judicial review is not a forum to re-evaluate those primary factual assessments.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1431
Parties
1st Applicant: Rustam Khan; 2nd Applicant: Rahab Khan; Putative Respondent: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL838/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 BOR, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 BOR Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustam Khan

1st Applicant

Rahab Khan

2nd Applicant

Immigration Department

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/Article 3 and Article 2 claims
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were justified

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the availability of state protection/internal relocation were rational and supported by evidence, and judicial review is not a forum to re-evaluate those primary factual assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.