JATTA OMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

JATTA OMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally concluded, on reliable Country of Origin Information and the absence of past ill-treatment or specific targeting, that there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real and substantial risk; the applicant identified no error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore no reasonably arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2004
Parties
Applicant: Jatta Omar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL554/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jatta Omar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture, death or persecution from the Gambian government if returned
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether there is any reasonably arguable basis warranting leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally concluded, on reliable Country of Origin Information and the absence of past ill-treatment or specific targeting, that there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real and substantial risk; the applicant identified no error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore no reasonably arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused