KHAN ABID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN ABID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation made the challenge without prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 924
Parties
Applicant: Khan Abid; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL779/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Abid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture/cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (BOR Art 3) or persecution attracting non-refoulement (Refugee Convention Art 33)
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation was available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation made the challenge without prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused