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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to them and did not give rise to a viable judicial review claim.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 317
Parties
Applicant: Ali Asif; 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
1 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL575/2017
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 and Ill‑treatment (bor Art 3), Right to Life (bor Art 2), Asylum/refugee Status, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement Torture and Ill‑treatment (bor Art 3) Right to Life (bor Art 2) Asylum/refugee Status +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Asif

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 erred in assessing risk of torture/ill‑treatment or persecution
  2. 2 Whether lack of legal representation before the Board breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether extended state acquiescence applies to the applicant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to them and did not give rise to a viable judicial review claim.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.