HOSSAIN MONIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

HOSSAIN MONIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded on the evidence that there was no real risk of torture or persecution, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant's credibility was undermined by the long unexplained delay, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1454
Parties
Applicant: Hossain Monir; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL846/2017
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, Risk of Torture, Article 3 HKBOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Judicial Review Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Article 3 HKBOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossain Monir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

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 the Director and the Board erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or persecution on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded on the evidence that there was no real risk of torture or persecution, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant's credibility was undermined by the long unexplained delay, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refuse the application for leave to apply for judicial review dated 6 November 2017