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

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

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's decisions were lawfully reached, not Wednesbury unreasonable, involved no procedural unfairness, the Adjudicator considered the Applicant's submissions (including the 6 January 2017 letter) and was entitled to attach no weight to hearsay or vague material, and the Applicant showed no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 218
Parties
Applicant: Afsar Khan; 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
1 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL612/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afsar Khan

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/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave for judicial review should be granted to challenge the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness by not holding further oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider evidence (letter of 6 January 2017)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's decisions were lawfully reached, not Wednesbury unreasonable, involved no procedural unfairness, the Adjudicator considered the Applicant's submissions (including the 6 January 2017 letter) and was entitled to attach no weight to hearsay or vague material, and the Applicant showed 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.