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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusion that internal relocation was available were within the fact-finding remit of the primary decision-makers and there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 444
Parties
Applicant: Khan Shamim; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL596/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (documents Considered; Applicant Absent)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Leave Credibility Findings +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Shamim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (documents Considered; Applicant Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to challenge the Director's and Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were legally vulnerable
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation was reasonably available and lawful to rely upon

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusion that internal relocation was available were within the fact-finding remit of the primary decision-makers and there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.