KHAN MUHAMMAD TANVEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN MUHAMMAD TANVEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator made detailed credibility findings supported by the evidence, adequately considered COI and state protection including BOR 2 risk, applied the correct legal principles and the enhanced Wednesbury test, and there was no arguable error of law or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 694
Parties
Applicant: Khan Muhammad Tanveer; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL320/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Asylum Procedural Fairness State Protection +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Muhammad Tanveer

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law in assessing state protection
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in relation to country of origin information (COI) and notification for BOR 2 material

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator made detailed credibility findings supported by the evidence, adequately considered COI and state protection including BOR 2 risk, applied the correct legal principles and the enhanced Wednesbury test, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on review.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (dated 28 March 2018)