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

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

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility finding and the assessments that past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection was available and internal relocation was reasonable were rational and within the decision-makers' remit, so judicial review was not an appropriate vehicle to re-evaluate the merits.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1677
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Sattar; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL504/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Law, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Law Credibility Assessment +2 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Sattar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Pakistan (BOR Articles 2 and 3, Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and reasonable internal relocation are available to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility finding and the assessments that past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection was available and internal relocation was reasonable were rational and within the decision-makers' remit, so judicial review was not an appropriate vehicle to re-evaluate the merits.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused