ALIM ABDUL v. CHRISTIAN PATRICK CARNEY, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALIM ABDUL v. CHRISTIAN PATRICK CARNEY, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused leave because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; the Board and Director made reasoned, evidence-based findings of inconsistency and lack of credibility; they reasonably concluded low intensity of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and feasible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2201
Parties
Applicant: Alim Abdul; 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
28 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL875/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/immigration) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Leave)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility and Fact Finding, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review (irrationality)
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +7 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alim Abdul

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/torture/immigration) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in its credibility and fact-finding
  2. 2 Whether the Board/Director failed to take into account or misapplied relevant and up-to-date country of origin information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Bangladesh was wrongly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; the Board and Director made reasoned, evidence-based findings of inconsistency and lack of credibility; they reasonably concluded low intensity of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation; there was no procedural unfairness shown. Consequently there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (decision dated 28 September 2018)