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

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

Leave was refused because the adjudicator reasonably assessed the evidence, correctly applied the legal tests on torture, CIDTP, risk to life and persecution, found the applicant not credible, and even on an assumed truthful account there were no substantial grounds for a real risk or lack of state protection; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 874
Parties
Applicant: Khan Imran; 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
4 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL556/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, CIDTP (bor3), Right to Life (bor2), Refugee Convention Protection, State Protection/extended State Acquiescence, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat CIDTP (bor3) Right to Life (bor2) +4 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Imran

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance/CAT
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces risk of CIDTP under BOR s8/Article 3 ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces risk to life under BOR s8/Article 6 ICCPR

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the adjudicator reasonably assessed the evidence, correctly applied the legal tests on torture, CIDTP, risk to life and persecution, found the applicant not credible, and even on an assumed truthful account there were no substantial grounds for a real risk or lack of state protection; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused