ALKASSOUM MOUSSA ALFAROUK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

ALKASSOUM MOUSSA ALFAROUK 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 identify any reasonably arguable public law error; the Board's findings on credibility, risk, state protection and internal relocation were rational, procedurally fair and supported by the evidence, so there was no basis for judicial intervention.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2831
Parties
Applicant: Alkassoum Moussa Alfarouk; 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
18 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1493/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alkassoum Moussa Alfarouk

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 / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's process
  3. 3 Whether the Board's credibility findings were irrational or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error; the Board's findings on credibility, risk, state protection and internal relocation were rational, procedurally fair and supported by the evidence, so there was no basis for judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.