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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to articulate any properly arguable ground; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings that the claim was fabricated and that no real risk existed were within the Board's province and did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 173
Parties
Applicant: Daouda Ibrahim; 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
2 January 2025
Case Number
HCAL987/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Refugee and Asylum Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Leave +5 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daouda Ibrahim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in affirming the Director's refusal of non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were susceptible to judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to articulate any properly arguable ground; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings that the claim was fabricated and that no real risk existed were within the Board's province and did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.