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

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

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularised; the Board and Director made clear adverse credibility findings and applied COI showing reasonable internal relocation and available state protection; no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the late...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1959
Parties
Applicant: Alam Towhid; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL25/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Stage — Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Impropriety, Country of Origin Information, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Public Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk +6 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Towhid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Stage — Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board failed to consider extended state acquiescence
  2. 2 Whether there was inadequate independent inquiry into Country of Origin Information and state protection
  3. 3 Whether the decision-makers failed to account for cumulative psychological impact of past assaults and police inaction

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularised; the Board and Director made clear adverse credibility findings and applied COI showing reasonable internal relocation and available state protection; no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the late documentary material was neither authentic nor capable of changing the outcome, so there was no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.