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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broadly stated without particulars and the decisions of the Director and the Board withstand rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny: findings of low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were supported by facts and COI, allegations were hearsay without corroboration, no procedural unfairness was established, and therefore there was no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1594
Parties
Applicant: Ahammed Mamun; 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
24 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL986/2017
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/article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR, Persecution/refugee Law Article 33, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Standard of Review (anxious Scrutiny)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahammed Mamun

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 the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational (Wednesbury/public law unreasonableness)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broadly stated without particulars and the decisions of the Director and the Board withstand rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny: findings of low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were supported by facts and COI, allegations were hearsay without corroboration, no procedural unfairness was established, and therefore there was no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused