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

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

The Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but reasonably assessed the risk as low, found the harm arose from a private money dispute, found available state protection and internal relocation, and made no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore there was no reasonably arguable public law ground and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2698
Parties
Applicant: Khan Mohammed Sahzada; 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 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1300/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment State Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Mohammed Sahzada

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law, was procedurally unfair or reached an irrational conclusion in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether past ill-treatment by private actors amounted to a real risk of future proscribed harm
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection and internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

The Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but reasonably assessed the risk as low, found the harm arose from a private money dispute, found available state protection and internal relocation, and made no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore there was no reasonably arguable public law ground and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.