LY RAHAMANE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

LY RAHAMANE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable were rational and supported by the evidence, so there was no prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3745
Parties
Applicant: Ly Rahamane; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL103/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Credibility Assessment +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ly Rahamane

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's and Director's decisions contained legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture, persecution or HKBOR Articles 2/3 breaches on return to Guinea
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Guinea was reasonable and available to avoid risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable were rational and supported by the evidence, so there was no prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.