IQBAL ANSARAPPLICANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

IQBAL ANSARAPPLICANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's and Director's findings that risk was low, the applicant was not specifically targeted, and internal relocation and state protection were available were reasonably open to them, and the applicant offered no additional facts to advance a BOR 2 claim.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 941
Parties
Applicant: Iqbal Ansar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1005/2018
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 (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Language Assistance
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +5 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iqbal Ansar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was entitled to free legal representation for a BOR 2 claim at screening or on appeal
  2. 2 Whether language assistance was required for the applicant's BOR 2 claim and appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board made legal or procedural errors in assessing risk and availability of state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's and Director's findings that risk was low, the applicant was not specifically targeted, and internal relocation and state protection were available were reasonably open to them, and the applicant offered no additional facts to advance a BOR 2 claim.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.