AHMED ADIL v. MICHAEL COLLIER JENKINS, member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMED ADIL v. MICHAEL COLLIER JENKINS, member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; those decisions reasonably concluded the risk was localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and judicial review does not permit a rehearing of such evaluative assessments.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1295
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Adil; Putative Respondent (member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board): Michael Collier Jenkins
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL273/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Determination of Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 Internal Relocation Judicial Review Standard of Review +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Adil

Applicant

Michael Collier Jenkins

Putative Respondent (member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Determination of Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director and Board reasonably assessed risk of harm and availability of state protection
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India was a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; those decisions reasonably concluded the risk was localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and judicial review does not permit a rehearing of such evaluative assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.