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

KHAN RUSTAM 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 ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, afforded procedural fairness and reached conclusions open on the facts, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2491
Parties
Applicant: Khan Rustam; 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
19 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL187/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Papers and Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBORO Article 2 and Article 3, Refugee Convention Article 33, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Standard and Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBORO Article 2 and Article 3 +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Rustam

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 Papers and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the TCAB adjudicator's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator committed error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review after appeal to the TCAB

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, afforded procedural fairness and reached conclusions open on the facts, so 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 refused.