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

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

The adjudicator lawfully applied the relevant statutory and human rights tests, found no real risk on any ground (torture, CIDTP, persecution or deprivation of life), identified available state protection/internal relocation and made a legitimate credibility finding; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the applicant’s case was not reasonably arguable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 564
Parties
Applicant: Aman; 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
23 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL390/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Status/persecution, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Status/persecution Credibility Findings +3 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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aman

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces a real risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (s37U)
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces a real risk of CIDTP under BOR Article 3 / ICCPR Article 7
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces a real risk to life under BOR Article 2 / ICCPR Article 6

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator lawfully applied the relevant statutory and human rights tests, found no real risk on any ground (torture, CIDTP, persecution or deprivation of life), identified available state protection/internal relocation and made a legitimate credibility finding; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the applicant’s case was not reasonably arguable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.