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

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

The adjudicator made defensible credibility findings and analysed evidence against the legal tests for torture, CIDTP and persecution; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 451
Parties
Applicant: Akther Lima; 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
9 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL484/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused by High Court (notification)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (cat), CIDTP (bor/iccpr Article 3), Refugee Persecution Risk (1951 Convention), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk (cat) CIDTP (bor/iccpr Article 3) Refugee Persecution Risk (1951 Convention) +2 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akther Lima

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused by High Court (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a real risk of torture as defined in the Immigration Ordinance and the Convention Against Torture
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under BOR s.8 and ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether there was a well‑founded fear of persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator made defensible credibility findings and analysed evidence against the legal tests for torture, CIDTP and persecution; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review