IDREES SOHAIL AND OTHERS v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

IDREES SOHAIL AND OTHERS v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were entitled to deference and the Director and Board lawfully concluded the risk was low and internal relocation was available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2374
Parties
Applicant: Idrees Sohail; Applicant: Sohail Shamaila; Applicant: Sohail Manahil; Putative Respondent: Kevin Anthony Browne, the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL555/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC, Immigration Ordinance), HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part Viic, Immigration Ordinance) HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 Internal Relocation +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idrees Sohail

Applicant

Sohail Shamaila

Applicant

Sohail Manahil

Applicant

Kevin Anthony Browne, the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed legal error or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or failure of police protection was established or properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether Country of Origin Information (COI) was improperly treated or ignored

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were entitled to deference and the Director and Board lawfully concluded the risk was low and internal relocation was available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused