RE AJ

RE AJ

The applicant failed to establish substantial grounds that he would be subjected to torture on return because there was no evidence the attackers acted with state involvement or acquiescence, the police response was not torture, and the applicant did not discharge the evidential burden required by s37ZI.

Citation
RE AJ
Parties
Applicant: AJ; Adjudicator/respondent: William Lam; Decision Maker/respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2013
Case Number
HCAL166/2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53, Rule 3)
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave refused
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture, Torture Claim, State Attribution, Internal Relocation, Standard of Proof 'substantial Grounds'
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Convention Against Torture Torture Claim State Attribution Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AJ

Applicant

William Lam

Adjudicator/respondent

Director of Immigration

Decision Maker/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53, Rule 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant would face torture on return to Sri Lanka
  2. 2 Whether the alleged attack and threat could be attributed to the State or public officials
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Sri Lanka would avoid the risk

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish substantial grounds that he would be subjected to torture on return because there was no evidence the attackers acted with state involvement or acquiescence, the police response was not torture, and the applicant did not discharge the evidential burden required by s37ZI.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed