ASHRAFUL ALOM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ASHRAFUL ALOM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made lawful evaluations of risk based on evidence and COI, finding low risk, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 450
Parties
Applicant: Ashraful Alom; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL422/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Prohibition, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture/inhuman Treatment), Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Risk Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +6 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraful Alom

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing risk of harm and non-refoulement grounds
  2. 2 Whether the decisions were irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of procedural fairness by insufficient time/opportunity to produce evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made lawful evaluations of risk based on evidence and COI, finding low risk, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified to justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused