KALAM ABUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

KALAM ABUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; the Board's adverse credibility findings were reasonably reached after hearing oral evidence and are not susceptible to challenge in judicial review absent identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3478
Parties
Applicant: Kalam Abul; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL410/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Reinstated and Refused
Outcome
Application reinstated and then leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2, HKBOR Article 3, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Credibility Findings Internal Relocation Torture Risk +3 more

Source-derived case record

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

Kalam Abul

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 Reinstated and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director committed procedural unfairness in the appeal process
  2. 2 Whether the Board irrationally or unlawfully rejected the applicant's claim on credibility grounds
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture/cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or persecution on return to Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; the Board's adverse credibility findings were reasonably reached after hearing oral evidence and are not susceptible to challenge in judicial review absent identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and Board reasonably concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation in Bangladesh was available, so the non-refoulement claim had no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application reinstated and then leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be reinstated.
  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.