AKHTAR JAVED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AKHTAR JAVED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; both decision-makers permissibly found the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation in India was available, and judicial review is not an avenue to rehear those factual assessments.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2224
Parties
Applicant: Akhtar Javed; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL812/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Internal Relocation, Standard of Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhtar Javed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedure in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture or of violation of non-derogable rights on return to India
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India is reasonable and available to defeat the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; both decision-makers permissibly found the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation in India was available, and judicial review is not an avenue to rehear those factual assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.