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

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

Applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularised; the Board and Director made factual and evaluative findings that the risk was localized, stemmed from a private monetary dispute without state involvement, and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 734
Parties
Applicant: Ali Asraf; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL6/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Asraf

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or were procedurally unfair in assessing non-refoulement/torture risk
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence was a relevant and sufficiently pleaded ground
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to consider or properly weight Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularised; the Board and Director made factual and evaluative findings that the risk was localized, stemmed from a private monetary dispute without state involvement, and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and 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.