KHAN AJAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN AJAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable ground of legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by material inconsistencies and implausibilities and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3482
Parties
Applicant: Khan Ajab; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL761/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Assessment +5 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Ajab

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision involved error of law or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board's findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced real risk of torture/CIDTP or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable ground of legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by material inconsistencies and implausibilities and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success in judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Applicant's application dismissed.