AHMAD IFTIKHAR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMAD IFTIKHAR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's detailed findings were based on the evidence, the claim was assessed as a private localized dispute with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 427
Parties
Applicant: Ahmad Iftikhar; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL532/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Prohibition of Torture (hkbor Article 3), Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) Prohibition of Torture (hkbor Article 3) +3 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Iftikhar

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing the applicant's non-refoulement/torture and HKBOR risks
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred by failure to give time to produce evidence
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Pakistan is a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's detailed findings were based on the evidence, the claim was assessed as a private localized dispute with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.