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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and COI assessment were within permissible bounds; the risk was properly assessed as localized and internal relocation was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 121
Parties
Applicant: Bepari Masud; 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
11 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL205/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Refugee Persecution (article 33), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Refugee Persecution (article 33) +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bepari Masud

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and the Director made legal errors or procedural unfairness in assessing non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Adequacy and critical analysis of Country of Origin Information and whether the adjudicator impermissibly cherry-picked COI
  3. 3 Proper standard of review on leave for judicial review in non-refoulement matters

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and COI assessment were within permissible bounds; the risk was properly assessed as localized and internal relocation was reasonably available; and the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused