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

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

The Board conducted a proper and lawful assessment of credibility, evidence and COI, correctly found the threats were private and lacked nexus to USM grounds, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and the Decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 989
Parties
Applicant: Khatun Sharifa; 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
11 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL2392/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khatun Sharifa

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's Decision involved error of law or was irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in conducting the hearing by video link
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claimed political affiliation and credibility were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The Board conducted a proper and lawful assessment of credibility, evidence and COI, correctly found the threats were private and lacked nexus to USM grounds, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and the Decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not irrational; accordingly the leave application has no realistic prospect of success and is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.