FAHAD SHAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

FAHAD SHAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision was supported by COI and facts, was not Wednesbury unreasonable, contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2057
Parties
Applicant: Fahad Shah; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL639/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (cat), Asylum, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture (cat) Asylum Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fahad Shah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Allegation of procedural unfairness that the Adjudicator did not read the appeal bundle in full to the Applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factual assessment and reliance on COI was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision was supported by COI and facts, was not Wednesbury unreasonable, contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.