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

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

The Court found no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1788
Parties
Applicant: Khan Momin; 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
20 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL948/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution Credibility Assessment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Momin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk under Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (torture/CIDTP) of the HKBOR or under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success 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 refused