BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant's procedural complaints were contradicted by his own statements, the Board lawfully considered relevant Country of Origin Information and had legitimate credibility doubts, found no state involvement and that state protection was available, and therefore the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 546
Parties
Applicant: Bappy Shahajada Murad; 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
8 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1416/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review (leave), Country of Origin Information, Credibility Findings, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review (leave) Country of Origin Information +2 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bappy Shahajada Murad

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 applicant had an arguable ground for judicial review warranting leave
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness (late bundle, no translation, confusion) occurred
  3. 3 Whether the Board improperly relied on outdated or hearsay Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant's procedural complaints were contradicted by his own statements, the Board lawfully considered relevant Country of Origin Information and had legitimate credibility doubts, found no state involvement and that state protection was available, and therefore the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed