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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, gave the applicant a fair opportunity, made conclusions open on the facts that the incidents were localised political rivalry without specific targeting or state involvement, the harm did not meet required severity and internal relocation was feasible, and the applicant advanced no arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2014
Parties
Applicant: Alam Mahtab; 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
26 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL366/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/refugee Claim) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Mahtab

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 (non Refoulement/torture/refugee Claim) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator acted unlawfully, unreasonably or unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture/refugee claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real, personal and substantial risk of torture, ill-treatment or persecution if returned to India
  3. 3 Whether there was state involvement or specific targeting and whether internal relocation was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, gave the applicant a fair opportunity, made conclusions open on the facts that the incidents were localised political rivalry without specific targeting or state involvement, the harm did not meet required severity and internal relocation was feasible, and the applicant advanced no arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.