AKTER SHAFALI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AKTER SHAFALI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant advanced only vague, unparticularised grounds and produced no new evidence; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown in the Director’s or Board’s decisions which reasonably found the risk localized and internal relocation available; courts will not substitute their own...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 605
Parties
Applicant: Akter Shafali; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL420/2018
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 Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum/non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akter Shafali

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

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 in assessing the applicant’s non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the decisions breached procedural fairness by failing to allow time to adduce evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of persecution, torture or violation of non-derogable rights (including extra-judicial killing) on return to Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant advanced only vague, unparticularised grounds and produced no new evidence; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown in the Director’s or Board’s decisions which reasonably found the risk localized and internal relocation available; courts will not substitute their own assessment for that of primary decision-makers absent legal error, so the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.