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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk conclusions were supported by the record, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 479
Parties
Applicant: Khatun Mst Mukti; 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
1 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1188/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Refugee Convention Article 33, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Cidtp), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Refugee Convention Article 33 HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khatun Mst Mukti

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting applicant's evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk conclusions were supported by the record, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality warranting judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed