IQBAL AKHTAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

IQBAL AKHTAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational, supported by evidence and free of error of law or procedural unfairness, so the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 821
Parties
Applicant: Iqbal Akhtar; 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
31 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1385/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution Under Refugee Convention Article 33, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution Under Refugee Convention Article 33 +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iqbal Akhtar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in its credibility and risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board’s process
  3. 3 Whether the Board’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational, supported by evidence and free of error of law or procedural unfairness, so the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.