BAH KARAMO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BAH KARAMO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably evaluated the evidence and COI, concluded there was no credible risk and that internal relocation in The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 659
Parties
Applicant: Bah Karamo; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL683/2018
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, Asylum, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Screening Process
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Asylum Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bah Karamo

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

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 leave should be granted to challenge the Director and Board decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non‑refoulement/torture/Article 3 claims
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within The Gambia is reasonable and negates risk

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably evaluated the evidence and COI, concluded there was no credible risk and that internal relocation in The Gambia was available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.