ALAM KHORSED v. GINA TOWNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

ALAM KHORSED v. GINA TOWNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The Adjudicator's findings that the Applicant was not credible and that there was no real risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3 breaches, together with findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, were rational and lawful; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown, the appeal bundle was served in time, and the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable — therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 537
Parties
Applicant: Alam Khorsed; Putative Respondent: Adjudicator, Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL759/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture (cat), Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Duty of Fairness to Unrepresented Claimants, Service of Hearing Bundle
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Procedural Fairness Non‑refoulement Torture (cat) Persecution +5 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Khorsed

Applicant

Adjudicator, Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or acted unfairly or irrationally in dismissing the non‑refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director screened the BOR2 risk
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator's findings that the Applicant was not credible and that there was no real risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3 breaches, together with findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, were rational and lawful; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown, the appeal bundle was served in time, and the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable — therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.