BADJIE MALICK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BADJIE MALICK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's grounds were generic, unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board made lawful, adequately reasoned decisions including a credibility-based adverse finding after oral evidence, and the changed political circumstances...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 578
Parties
Applicant: Badjie Malick; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1129/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Badjie Malick

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board failed to take into account state acquiescence or state responsibility
  2. 2 Whether the decision-makers failed to give proper weight to COI and evidence of lack of state protection
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness standards (including Wednesbury unreasonableness) were breached

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's grounds were generic, unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board made lawful, adequately reasoned decisions including a credibility-based adverse finding after oral evidence, and the changed political circumstances in The Gambia substantially reduced any claimed risk so there was no identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness to justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.