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

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

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or unfairness in the Board's process; the Board's factual evaluations and risk assessments are matters for the Board and Director and there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review, so leave must be refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1542
Parties
Applicant: Akbar Javed; 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
14 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1844/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Right to Life (bor 2), Judicial Review Leave to Apply, Evaluation of Evidence and State Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Right to Life (bor 2) Judicial Review Leave to Apply Evaluation of Evidence and State Protection

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akbar Javed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed any legal error or denied a fair hearing allowing judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP, violation of right to life or persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or unfairness in the Board's process; the Board's factual evaluations and risk assessments are matters for the Board and Director and there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review, so leave must be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed