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

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

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's reasoned decisions; the adverse credibility finding and assessment that internal relocation was available are matters for the primary decision‑makers and not amenable to judicial review on the facts presented, so there is no prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 507
Parties
Applicant: Ali Rafaqat; 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
2 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1419/2018
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, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Rafaqat

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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Director and Board erred in law or procedure in rejecting non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether internal relocation was reasonably available
  3. 3 Whether state protection or acquiescence was deficient

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's reasoned decisions; the adverse credibility finding and assessment that internal relocation was available are matters for the primary decision‑makers and not amenable to judicial review on the facts presented, so there is no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.