AKRAM MUHAMMAD SUFYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AKRAM MUHAMMAD SUFYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board and Director lawfully evaluated the evidence, the Board was entitled to determine the appeal on the papers, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available and the asserted procedural complaints (lack of legal representation, failure to respond) did not establish unfairness warranting review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1471
Parties
Applicant: Akram Muhammad Sufyan; 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
10 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1828/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk Under Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC, Right to Life (bor S.8 Article 2), CIDTP (bor S.8 Article 3), Procedural Fairness in Administrative Proceedings, Legal Representation/duty Solicitor, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Under Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC Right to Life (bor S.8 Article 2) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akram Muhammad Sufyan

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 Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was procedurally unfair and susceptible to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing by remaining silent at the Board and/or through interpreter conduct
  3. 3 Whether failure to respond to the Director's request for information vitiated the assessment of BOR 2 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board and Director lawfully evaluated the evidence, the Board was entitled to determine the appeal on the papers, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available and the asserted procedural complaints (lack of legal representation, failure to respond) did not establish unfairness warranting review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed