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

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

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were speculative or unarguable: he had representation at screening and interpreter at hearing, provided no particulars of mistranslation, failed to supply or seek to adduce additional BOR2 evidence or request further screening, and both the Director and Board lawfully and properly assessed credibility, COI and internal relocation; no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1983
Parties
Applicant: Islam Mohammad Tajol; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL52/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture/cat Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Asylum Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Country of Origin Information, Legal Representation, Translation/interpretation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture/cat Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +6 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islam Mohammad Tajol

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether applicant was denied a fair hearing by lack of legal representation at appeal
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide a translation of the Non‑Refoulement Claim Form rendered proceedings unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were speculative or unarguable: he had representation at screening and interpreter at hearing, provided no particulars of mistranslation, failed to supply or seek to adduce additional BOR2 evidence or request further screening, and both the Director and Board lawfully and properly assessed credibility, COI and internal relocation; no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.