ISLAM MOHAMMAD SHARIFUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ISLAM MOHAMMAD SHARIFUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant presented only vague, unparticularized assertions and failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's thoroughly reasoned credibility and risk findings; the Board and Director's conclusions on localized risk and reasonable internal relocation were lawful and not susceptible to judicial review on the material before the court.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2896
Parties
Applicant: Islam Mohammad Shariful; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2023
Case Number
HCAL102/2017
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, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Refugee Convention Article 33 +3 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islam Mohammad Shariful

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Alleged procedural impropriety in Board's handling of COI and evidence
  3. 3 Alleged irrationality and failure to consider COI and state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant presented only vague, unparticularized assertions and failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's thoroughly reasoned credibility and risk findings; the Board and Director's conclusions on localized risk and reasonable internal relocation were lawful and not susceptible to judicial review on the material before the court.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.