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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was unlikely, state protection and internal relocation were available, meant there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1291
Parties
Applicant: Gassama Bakary; 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
24 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1759/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Initial Leave Application — Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Credibility Assessment 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gassama Bakary

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 / Initial Leave Application — Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed errors of law or procedural unfairness in assessing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant substantiated a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution if returned to Gambia
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was unlikely, state protection and internal relocation were available, meant there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Adjournment for legal aid refused