BISWAS SHONKOR KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BISWAS SHONKOR KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; the Director and Board provided detailed, reasoned findings that the threats were extortionate, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1346
Parties
Applicant: Biswas Shonkor Kumar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL831/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review — Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biswas Shonkor Kumar

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 Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are substantial grounds for non-refoulement including torture/BOR risks
  2. 2 Whether the Board acted procedurally unfairly in its credibility assessment
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Bangladesh is a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; the Director and Board provided detailed, reasoned findings that the threats were extortionate, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; 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