M.A. JALIL v. SIMON RUSSELL, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

M.A. JALIL v. SIMON RUSSELL, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding following oral hearing fell within its primary fact-finding role, the claim was localized with available state protection and internal relocation, and the Applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2590
Parties
Applicant: M.A. Jalil; Putative Respondent: Simon Russell, ESQ., Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1223/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 Internal Relocation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.A. Jalil

Applicant

Simon Russell, ESQ., Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board misdirected itself in law by requiring past torture to infer future torture risk
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to take into account or properly weigh relevant and up-to-date country of origin information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the hearing including late service of the hearing bundle and inadequate legal assistance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding following oral hearing fell within its primary fact-finding role, the claim was localized with available state protection and internal relocation, and the Applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.