KHAN ABU SAID v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN ABU SAID v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were rationally reached after oral evidence and the Director’s finding of available and reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1741
Parties
Applicant: Khan Abu Said; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL464/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Abu Said

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing the applicant’s non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether decisions were unfair, irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were properly reached

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were rationally reached after oral evidence and the Director’s finding of available and reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh was supported by objective information, so there was no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused