HALDAR ALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

HALDAR ALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and its assessment that risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available were within its fact‑finding discretion and supported by the record, and judicial review does not permit re‑hearing of the non‑refoulement claim.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 230
Parties
Applicant: Haldar Alom; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1339/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture/cruel Treatment), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haldar Alom

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board acted with procedural unfairness or unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator conducted the oral hearing unfairly to a self-represented claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and its assessment that risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available were within its fact‑finding discretion and supported by the record, and judicial review does not permit re‑hearing of the non‑refoulement claim.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.