KHAN ZABIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN ZABIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Director and the Board made lawful, rational factual findings supported by evidence and COI that the applicant faced only localized, low‑intensity threats; state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the challenge was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2424
Parties
Applicant: Khan Zabit; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1154/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review for Factual Findings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Zabit

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting applicant's non‑refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether past threats met the minimum severity for torture/BOR protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation was available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director and the Board made lawful, rational factual findings supported by evidence and COI that the applicant faced only localized, low‑intensity threats; state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the challenge was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.