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

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

Leave was refused because the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board has been pursued and because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: he refused to cooperate at the Board hearing, produced no medical or other evidence to support his claims, and the Adjudicator reasonably found on the credible evidence that there was no real risk of proscribed harm on return to Bangladesh.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2217
Parties
Applicant: Lal Miah; 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
16 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1926/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life +2 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lal Miah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to judicially review the Director's decision and the Board's decision should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factfinding was unfair or unreasonable given the applicant's refusal to answer questions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board has been pursued and because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: he refused to cooperate at the Board hearing, produced no medical or other evidence to support his claims, and the Adjudicator reasonably found on the credible evidence that there was no real risk of proscribed harm on return to Bangladesh.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed