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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and the applicant's failure to discharge the burden to prove a real risk or nexus under the USM meant there was no material error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness warranting interference.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1425
Parties
Applicant: Abul Bashar Akando; 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
18 May 2022
Case Number
HCAL557/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to amend Form 86 granted; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration and Asylum Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abul Bashar Akando

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Board erred in law by making findings unsupported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred
  3. 3 Whether Board's decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and the applicant's failure to discharge the burden to prove a real risk or nexus under the USM meant there was no material error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness warranting interference.

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 by naming the Board as intended respondent.
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.