ILYAS REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ILYAS REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and not susceptible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 998
Parties
Applicant: Ilyas Rehman; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL177/2018
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, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilyas Rehman

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Immigration Department

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces real risk of torture or serious ill-treatment amounting to non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether state/police protection and internal relocation are available and reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board made errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in assessing the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and not susceptible to judicial review; therefore 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.