CHOWDHURY ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

CHOWDHURY ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's thorough adverse credibility determination and in the Director/Board's assessment that risk was low and internal relocation/state protection were available.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2130
Parties
Applicant: Chowdhury Arif; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL837/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Credibility Findings 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chowdhury Arif

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces torture or other proscribed harm (Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC; HKBOR Articles 2 and 3; Refugee Convention Article 33)
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and state protection make return safe

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's thorough adverse credibility determination and in the Director/Board's assessment that risk was low and internal relocation/state protection were available.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave refused