AKHTAR NAEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AKHTAR NAEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because applicant merely challenged factual findings; the Board applied correct legal tests, observed procedural fairness, made credible adverse findings, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1449
Parties
Applicant: Akhtar Naeem; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Case Number
HCAL449/2019
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, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Leave Credibility Assessment State Protection +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhtar Naeem

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision is susceptible to judicial review or has superseded the Director's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant discharged the burden of proof for non-refoulement under the USM
  3. 3 Whether the Board committed an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicant merely challenged factual findings; the Board applied correct legal tests, observed procedural fairness, made credible adverse findings, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.