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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's findings on credibility, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1816
Parties
Applicant: Akther Samima; 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
16 June 2022
Case Number
HCAL1089/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (on Paper)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (bor 2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (bor 2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akther Samima

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's BOR 2 (right to life) claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's credibility findings and assessment of state protection and internal relocation were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to justify leave to apply for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's findings on credibility, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • The applicant's application is dismissed.