ABDUL MANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

ABDUL MANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural impropriety by the Adjudicator or the TCAB: the findings that there was no state involvement or acquiescence, no injury meeting the threshold for torture/CIDTP, availability of state protection, and adverse credibility in delay were open on the evidence and did not meet the threshold for leave; further judicial review of the Director's decision was precluded by the availability and use of the appeal to the TCAB.

Citation
ABDUL MANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: ABDUL MANNAN; 1st Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; 2nd Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Case Number
HCAL243/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Administrative/constitutional Proceedings / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, State Protection, State Acquiescence, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Human Rights Constitutional Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABDUL MANNAN

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

1st Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Administrative/constitutional Proceedings / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established arguable grounds to judicially review the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator and TCAB erred in law in rejecting torture risk under the Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator and TCAB erred in law in rejecting BOR Article 3 risk (CAP 383 s8)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural impropriety by the Adjudicator or the TCAB: the findings that there was no state involvement or acquiescence, no injury meeting the threshold for torture/CIDTP, availability of state protection, and adverse credibility in delay were open on the evidence and did not meet the threshold for leave; further judicial review of the Director's decision was precluded by the availability and use of the appeal to the TCAB.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused