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

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

Leave refused because the applicant's stated grounds were not reasonably arguable: he failed to show error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, presented no new facts on BOR 2 risk, had opportunities to present his case, and COI supported the availability of state protection or reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1692
Parties
Applicant: Ali Zulfiqar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL842/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 Right to Life, Article 3 Prohibition of Torture, Interpreter Assistance, Right to Legal Representation, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Procedure Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 Right to Life Article 3 Prohibition of Torture +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Zulfiqar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether lack of legal representation in appeal before Board rendered process unfair
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide an interpreter denied fair hearing in relation to BOR 2 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's stated grounds were not reasonably arguable: he failed to show error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, presented no new facts on BOR 2 risk, had opportunities to present his case, and COI supported the availability of state protection or reasonable internal relocation in Pakistan such that non-refoulement protection was not justified.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.