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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board and Director had legitimately assessed the evidence, found the applicant's account inconsistent and without primary factual basis, and had addressed BOR2 and torture risks and state protection/internal relocation; those findings are matters for the primary decision-makers and not for the court to overturn on leave application.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1205
Parties
Applicant: Asghar Ibrar; 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
16 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1896/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Law Article 33, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Law Article 33 Credibility Findings +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asghar Ibrar

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion or acted with procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board irrationally rejected the applicant's credibility and primary facts
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Board properly assessed BOR Article 2 and Article 3 risks and risk of torture under the Immigration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board and Director had legitimately assessed the evidence, found the applicant's account inconsistent and without primary factual basis, and had addressed BOR2 and torture risks and state protection/internal relocation; those findings are matters for the primary decision-makers and not for the court to overturn on leave application.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed