HOSSEN GAZI KAMAL AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HOSSEN GAZI KAMAL AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the alleged ill-treatment fell below the required severity, that there was no state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be legally flawed; no child-specific non-refoulement grounds were identified that had not been or could not have been raised before the Board.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2227
Parties
1st Applicant: Hossen Gazi Kamal; 2nd Applicant: Begum Shefali; 3rd Applicant: Jarnika Gazi; 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
12 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL1162/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Heard and Determined (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Child Specific Consideration
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossen Gazi Kamal

1st Applicant

Begum Shefali

2nd Applicant

Jarnika Gazi

3rd 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) / Leave Application Heard and Determined (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have arguable/non-frivolous grounds to judicially review the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law by failing to give separate consideration to the minor's claim given lack of legal representation
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factual findings (lack of severity, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were legally vulnerable to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the alleged ill-treatment fell below the required severity, that there was no state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be legally flawed; no child-specific non-refoulement grounds were identified that had not been or could not have been raised before the Board.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Joint application dismissed