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

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

Leave refused because the Board's and Director's decisions were lawfully reached, free of material procedural unfairness or legal error, the applicant failed to particularise substantive grounds or to attend and explain absence, and the accepted findings of available state protection and reasonable internal relocation meant no real prospect of non-refoulement or torture claim succeeding.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1354
Parties
Applicant: Alam Irshad; 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
2 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL650/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Unified Screening Mechanism, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Unified Screening Mechanism Procedural Fairness +2 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Irshad

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 Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director acted with procedural fairness in handling the applicant's USM/torture appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to another oral hearing after failing to attend the listed hearing
  3. 3 Whether the decision to reject protection was reasonable in law given alleged private criminality by a creditor

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board's and Director's decisions were lawfully reached, free of material procedural unfairness or legal error, the applicant failed to particularise substantive grounds or to attend and explain absence, and the accepted findings of available state protection and reasonable internal relocation meant no real prospect of non-refoulement or torture claim succeeding.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused