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

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

Leave refused because the Board and Director conducted a lawful, rational, and adequately reasoned assessment: credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies, the assessed risk was low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness — therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 442
Parties
Applicant: Din Shamas; 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
21 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL9/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture/cruel Treatment), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (torture/cruel Treatment) +4 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Din Shamas

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or other serious harm on return to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or reasonable internal relocation is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board and Director conducted a lawful, rational, and adequately reasoned assessment: credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies, the assessed risk was low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness — therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused