AHMAD IJAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMAD IJAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board rejected the factual basis of the applicant's claim, there was no evidence of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the applicant therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1756
Parties
Applicant: Ahmad Ijaz; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1737/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Immigration/non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review Leave to Apply, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Leave to Apply Credibility Assessment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Ijaz

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Immigration/non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in its credibility assessment of the applicant
  2. 2 Whether there was any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board rejected the factual basis of the applicant's claim, there was no evidence of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the applicant therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused
  • Application dismissed