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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Adjudicator each applied the correct legal tests, engaged with the evidence, afforded procedural fairness, and reached conclusions that were open to them on the facts; no arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness were identified and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1829
Parties
Applicant: Abdur Rahman; 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
28 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL1108/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Under Order 53 / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBORO, Article 2 HKBORO, Refugee Convention Article 33, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdur Rahman

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 Under Order 53 / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator erred in law, acted unreasonably or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real and personal risk of torture, cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life if returned to Bangladesh
  3. 3 Whether there is an arguable and reasonably arguable ground to justify leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Adjudicator each applied the correct legal tests, engaged with the evidence, afforded procedural fairness, and reached conclusions that were open to them on the facts; no arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness were identified and therefore there was 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.
  • Notification of decision and reasons sent to Applicant, Putative Respondent and Putative Interested Party on 28/9/2018.