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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of substantiation and the viability of internal relocation were rational and procedurally fair, and there was no prospect of success...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2830
Parties
Applicant: Ali Mohammed Rashid; 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
18 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1492/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application (considered on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Torture/cidtp, Non Refoulement, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Law Torture/cidtp Non Refoulement Internal Relocation Credibility Findings +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Mohammed Rashid

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) / Decision on Leave Application (considered on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there are substantial grounds for believing the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution if returned
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation are viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of substantiation and the viability of internal relocation were rational and procedurally fair, and there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.