M BARA ABAIDI IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

M BARA ABAIDI IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board lawfully assessed credibility, relied on country of origin information showing improved conditions and availability of state protection and internal relocation, and there was no basis for the court to intervene on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 748
Parties
Applicant: M Bara Abaidi Ibrahim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL61/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Assessment, Interpreter Issues, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Leave Credibility Assessment +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M Bara Abaidi Ibrahim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has an arguable non-refoulement claim including risk of torture or violation of BOR Articles 2 and 3
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing risk and credibility
  3. 3 Whether alleged interpreter failures amount to a reviewable procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board lawfully assessed credibility, relied on country of origin information showing improved conditions and availability of state protection and internal relocation, and there was no basis for the court to intervene on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Notification of the decision sent to the Applicant and Putative Respondent on 17 June 2019.