ILYAS ADIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ILYAS ADIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars and the decisions of the Director and the Board disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the Board reasonably accepted the applicant's account of past assaults but correctly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 865
Parties
Applicant: Ilyas Adil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Case Number
HCAL826/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision Dated 27 April 2018)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Prohibition of Torture, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice, Standard of Proof, Country of Origin Information, Legal Representation Under Duty Lawyer Scheme
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Public Law Non Refoulement Prohibition of Torture +7 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilyas Adil

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 (decision Dated 27 April 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in their assessment of country of origin information
  2. 2 Whether past ill-treatment and low intensity assaults established a real risk of future serious harm
  3. 3 Whether state and police protection would be available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars and the decisions of the Director and the Board disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the Board reasonably accepted the applicant's account of past assaults but correctly concluded the low intensity and infrequency of those assaults did not establish a real risk of torture or persecution, state protection was plausibly available, internal relocation was reasonable, the COI relied on was recent and relevant, there was no basis for psychiatric evidence, and the applicant had duty lawyer representation, such that there was no prospect of success on...

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (decision dated 27 April 2018)