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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant's asserted procedural grounds were contradicted by his in‑court statements or unsupported by evidence, the Board's adverse credibility findings were unchallenged and dispositive, the Board reasonably considered and found internal relocation available, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1658
Parties
Applicant: Abbas Tasawar; 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
2 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL1597/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Refugee Convention Article 33, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Refugee Convention Article 33 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbas Tasawar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural irregularities (late bundle, lack of interpreter) breached right to a fair hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were justified
  3. 3 Whether applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution if returned to Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's asserted procedural grounds were contradicted by his in‑court statements or unsupported by evidence, the Board's adverse credibility findings were unchallenged and dispositive, the Board reasonably considered and found internal relocation available, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review
  • Dismiss the application