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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the Adjudicator's credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to her and the applicant effectively sought a rehearing rather than a grounded judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1329
Parties
Applicant: Hossain Mohammad Alamgir; 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
23 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1554/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Appeal) / Decision on Leave Application (refused); Considered on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBORO, Judicial Review (leave), Procedural Fairness, Standard of Proof, TCAB Appeal
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBORO Judicial Review (leave) +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossain Mohammad Alamgir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Appeal) / Decision on Leave Application (refused); Considered on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or procedure
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the Adjudicator's credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to her and the applicant effectively sought a rehearing rather than a grounded judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.