ABBAS QAMMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ABBAS QAMMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because there was no arguable error of law, no procedural unfairness and no irrationality in the Director's and Board's conclusions that the applicant's risk was a localized private dispute, that state protection/internal relocation were reasonably available and therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 305
Parties
Applicant: Abbas Qammar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL234/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused by Deputy High Court Judge
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (article 3 Hkbor), Risk of Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave Test, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Irrationality
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture Risk (article 3 Hkbor) Risk of Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33) +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbas Qammar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused by Deputy High Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has an arguable ground of public law error to obtain leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available or internal relocation would remove the risk alleged by the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because there was no arguable error of law, no procedural unfairness and no irrationality in the Director's and Board's conclusions that the applicant's risk was a localized private dispute, that state protection/internal relocation were reasonably available and therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.