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

HOSSAIN AKHTAR 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 identify any legal or procedural error by the Board, the Board's factual evaluation fell squarely within its remit and was not shown to be legally wrong, and the applicant lacked any reasonable prospect of success on a judicial review challenge.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1214
Parties
Applicant: Hossain Akhtar; 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
18 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1743/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Prohibition of Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Right to Life, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Evaluation of Evidence, Judicial Review Scope
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition of Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment +5 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossain Akhtar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in evaluating the risk of torture and persecution
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an arguable/realistic prospect of success on a judicial review challenge to the Board's factual evaluation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal or procedural error by the Board, the Board's factual evaluation fell squarely within its remit and was not shown to be legally wrong, and the applicant lacked any reasonable prospect of success on a judicial review challenge.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed