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

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

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully applied the correct legal standards, its factual findings (including availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were supported by credible COI and evidence, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality that would give the proposed judicial review a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2575
Parties
Applicant: Khatun Asma; 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 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL528/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Determined on Paper; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review Standard of Review +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khatun Asma

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Determined on Paper; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed error of law in rejecting non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the USM proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the Board's findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully applied the correct legal standards, its factual findings (including availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were supported by credible COI and evidence, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality that would give the proposed judicial review a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused