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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator properly conducted a rehearing, made detailed findings of significant inconsistencies and adverse credibility which rationally supported rejection of all four grounds, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and thus no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 898
Parties
Applicant: Hassan Ali; 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 2019
Case Number
HCAL1677/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Persecution, Right to Life, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassan Ali

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 / Decision on Leave (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces a real risk of torture as defined in Part VIIC of Immigration Ordinance/Article 1 of Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces a real risk of CIDTP under Article 3 of Hong Kong Bill of Rights/ICCPR Article 7
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces a real risk of persecution attracting non-refoulement protection under 1951 Refugee Convention Articles 33 and 1A(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator properly conducted a rehearing, made detailed findings of significant inconsistencies and adverse credibility which rationally supported rejection of all four grounds, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and thus no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration confirmed