AWRANG AMIR MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AWRANG AMIR MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director and the Board lawfully and rationally assessed the claimant's evidence and COI, correctly found no substantial grounds of real risk from the Taliban given low profile, available state protection and viable internal relocation (notably Kabul); no procedural unfairness arose from the claimant's waiver of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 130
Parties
Applicant: Awrang Amir Mohammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Case Number
HCAL963/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Refused (application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Torture/cidtp, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Internal Relocation State Protection Torture/cidtp Procedural Fairness +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Awrang Amir Mohammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Refused (application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or state collusion applied
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

The Director and the Board lawfully and rationally assessed the claimant's evidence and COI, correctly found no substantial grounds of real risk from the Taliban given low profile, available state protection and viable internal relocation (notably Kabul); no procedural unfairness arose from the claimant's waiver of a hearing; accordingly there was no arguable ground for judicial review and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused