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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings that the risk from named individuals was low and that state protection was available were supported by the evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no real prospect of success to justify grant of leave.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 482
Parties
Applicant: Aamir Sohail; 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
1 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1225/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Risk to Life, State Protection, Wednesbury Irrationality, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk to Life +4 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aamir Sohail

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed error of law or procedural unfairness in assessing risk
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real and foreseeable risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Pakistan was unavailable or ineffective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings that the risk from named individuals was low and that state protection was available were supported by the evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no real prospect of success to justify grant of leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed