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

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

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error; the Adjudicator properly applied legal tests, made open-to-her credibility findings after enquiry, provided adequate reasons, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1931
Parties
Applicant: Khan Ajmal; 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
16 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL112/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Cap 115 Part Viic), HKBORO Articles 2 and 3, 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Cap 115 Part Viic) HKBORO Articles 2 and 3 +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Ajmal

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 / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Adjudicator erred in law or procedure
  2. 2 proper standard and burden of proof for torture/Article 3/BOR2/Convention claims
  3. 3 proper assessment of credibility

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error; the Adjudicator properly applied legal tests, made open-to-her credibility findings after enquiry, provided adequate reasons, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.