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

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

Leave refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the appeal bundle was served within the prescribed time, there was no evidential basis that the Applicant lacked assistance or was prejudiced by lack of legal representation, the Adjudicator conducted the hearing fairly, made supported credibility findings and lawful conclusions on risk and relocation, and his decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or affected by legal error.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2138
Parties
Applicant: Alam Khan; 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
5 October 2018
Case Number
HCAL361/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Torture Claim, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Torture Claim +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Khan

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 Adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator fettered discretion or relied on inadmissible materials
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator's findings were irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the appeal bundle was served within the prescribed time, there was no evidential basis that the Applicant lacked assistance or was prejudiced by lack of legal representation, the Adjudicator conducted the hearing fairly, made supported credibility findings and lawful conclusions on risk and relocation, and his decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or affected by legal error.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.