FAKHRUDDIN MD v. ANDREW MA, MEMBER OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

FAKHRUDDIN MD v. ANDREW MA, MEMBER OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified, and the Director and Board lawfully assessed the risk as localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2668
Parties
Applicant: Fakhruddin Md; Putative Respondent: Andrew Ma, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1251/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture State Protection +3 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

Fakhruddin Md

Applicant

Andrew Ma, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe the applicant faced real risk of torture, death or persecution on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh made non-refoulement inapplicable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified, and the Director and Board lawfully assessed the risk as localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.