ALI ZEESHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI ZEESHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant could not demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: he had prior legal representation before the Director, declined to give evidence before the Board, there is no absolute right to representation, interpreter or a further oral...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1453
Parties
Applicant: Ali Zeeshan; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL902/2017
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 Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Right to Interpreter, Judicial Review, Bias
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment) +6 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Zeeshan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

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 applicant was entitled to free legal representation at appeal stage
  2. 2 Whether applicant was entitled to language assistance/interpreter
  3. 3 Whether applicant was entitled to a further oral hearing on BOR 2 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant could not demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: he had prior legal representation before the Director, declined to give evidence before the Board, there is no absolute right to representation, interpreter or a further oral hearing absent request or evidence of unfairness, objective material supported availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the assignment of the same adjudicator did not establish real bias; thus there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refuse the applicant's Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review dated 17 November 2017