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

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

Leave was refused because the TCAB conducted a de novo rehearing and lawfully found no substantial or foreseeable risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of the right to life; state protection and internal relocation were available; credibility concerns further undermined the claim; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the application was not reasonably arguable or realistic.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 410
Parties
Applicant: Hasan; 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
5 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL441/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Status, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Country of Origin Information, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Status Judicial Review +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

Hasan

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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces risk of torture under the Immigration Ordinance and the Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under BOR Article 3 and ICCPR Article 7
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces persecution for refugee protection under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the TCAB conducted a de novo rehearing and lawfully found no substantial or foreseeable risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of the right to life; state protection and internal relocation were available; credibility concerns further undermined the claim; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the application was not reasonably arguable or realistic.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused