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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and TCAB lawfully and reasonably found the risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of BOR rights was low (private dispute, no physical injury, state protection and internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 46
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Intizar; 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
26 January 2018
Case Number
HCAL163/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Application Determined on the Papers (applicant Absent)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (cat) Risk, Article 3 ICCPR / BOR 3 Protection, Article 2 ICCPR / BOR 2 Right to Life, Refugee Convention Persecution Test, Procedural Fairness (legal Representation and Interpreter), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture (cat) Risk Article 3 ICCPR / BOR 3 Protection Article 2 ICCPR / BOR 2 Right to Life +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Intizar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Application Determined on the Papers (applicant Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real risk of torture as defined in section 37U(1) Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) / CAT
  2. 2 Whether applicant established risk under BOR Article 3 (CIDTP) or BOR Article 2 (right to life) and ICCPR Articles 7 and 6 respectively
  3. 3 Whether applicant established persecution for purposes of non-refoulement under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and TCAB lawfully and reasonably found the risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of BOR rights was low (private dispute, no physical injury, state protection and internal relocation viable), and the alleged procedural defects (lack of ongoing legal representation and lack of language assistance) were not shown to have caused unfairness or error of law; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave refused
  • Notification sent to applicant and parties on 26 January 2018