BASHIR AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BASHIR AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's fact‑finding and evaluation of evidence were not shown to be unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair, and the Board lawfully concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing a real and substantial risk existed given availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1375
Parties
Applicant: Bashir Ahmed; 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
30 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1798/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution Under Refugee Convention, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Credibility and Evaluation of Evidence
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution Under Refugee Convention Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashir Ahmed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board procedurally unfairly failed to consider relevant evidence or country information
  2. 2 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion or acted irrationally in assessing risk
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's assaults and harassment amounted to torture or persecution within applicable instruments

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's fact‑finding and evaluation of evidence were not shown to be unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair, and the Board lawfully concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing a real and substantial risk existed given availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.