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

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

The Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its primary fact-finding remit, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2488
Parties
Applicant: Abtab Alam; 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
11 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL1025/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused on Paper (form 86 Amended)
Outcome
Leave to amend Form 86 granted; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Irrationality
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Judicial Review Credibility Assessment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abtab Alam

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused on Paper (form 86 Amended)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's evidence was credible and sufficient to discharge burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision remained reviewable after Board decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its primary fact-finding remit, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Form 86 granted; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (Form 86) granted
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused