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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of review; there was no error of law or procedure, no procedural unfairness, and the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing and reached a decision that was open on the facts and eminently reasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2215
Parties
Applicant: Abdul Sahid; 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
7 December 2018
Case Number
HCAL946/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Application for Leave (considered on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 BOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 BOR (right to Life), Refugee Convention Article 33, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 BOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Article 2 BOR (right 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Sahid

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 / Application for Leave (considered on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the Director of Immigration's and TCAB Adjudicator's decisions
  2. 2 Whether there was any error of law, procedural unfairness or unreasonableness in the handling of the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator applied the correct burden and standard of proof for non-refoulement and BOR claims

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of review; there was no error of law or procedure, no procedural unfairness, and the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing and reached a decision that was open on the facts and eminently reasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.