HOSSAIN ABIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

HOSSAIN ABIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational, supported by evidence and detailed reasons; risks were assessed as low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available, so no arguable non-refoulement claim meriting judicial review under the Wednesbury standard.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2984
Parties
Applicant: Hossain Abir; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL116/2019
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 Risk, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Screening and Appeal to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Findings Internal Relocation +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossain Abir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board made reviewable legal errors in assessing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether adverse credibility findings were irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational, supported by evidence and detailed reasons; risks were assessed as low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available, so no arguable non-refoulement claim meriting judicial review under the Wednesbury standard.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.