AJIT BISWAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AJIT BISWAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; both bodies properly assessed that there were no substantial grounds for a real risk of torture or persecution given low intensity of past threats, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant’s non‑cooperation undermined credibility.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1176
Parties
Applicant: Ajit Biswas; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1550/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Decision
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility, Screening and Appeal Process
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajit Biswas

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are substantial grounds for believing the applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture or ill-treatment on return to Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether reasonable internal relocation within Bangladesh is available to defeat the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether state/police protection would be available on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; both bodies properly assessed that there were no substantial grounds for a real risk of torture or persecution given low intensity of past threats, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant’s non‑cooperation undermined credibility.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.