ARIF MOLLA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ARIF MOLLA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board and Director reasonably found no specific targeting, assessed the risk as low, found the applicant not credible, and concluded state protection or internal relocation was realistic; the procedural complaints were vague and unsupported; therefore there was no prospect of success in judicial review and leave was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1322
Parties
Applicant: Arif Molla; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL949/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused on Consideration of Documents and Decisions of Director and Board
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +5 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arif Molla

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused on Consideration of Documents and Decisions of Director and Board

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or ill-treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation is reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The Board and Director reasonably found no specific targeting, assessed the risk as low, found the applicant not credible, and concluded state protection or internal relocation was realistic; the procedural complaints were vague and unsupported; therefore there was no prospect of success in judicial review and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.