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

ALI 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 plead any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; careful review of the papers disclosed no error of law or procedure and the Adjudicator's decision was open on the facts and eminently reasonable.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1043
Parties
Applicant: Ali 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
11 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL561/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Consideration of Leave Application on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBORO, Article 2 HKBORO, Refugee Convention Article 33, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality Review, Unified Screening Mechanism, Standard of Proof
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBORO +7 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali 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 / Consideration of Leave Application on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated an arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness by the Adjudicator to justify leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or procedure in handling the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real and personal risk of torture, persecution or breach of BOR provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; careful review of the papers disclosed no error of law or procedure and the Adjudicator's decision was open on the facts and eminently reasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.