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

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

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or unreasonableness in the Director's or Adjudicator's decisions; their findings were open on the facts and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1783
Parties
Applicant: Madbar Sohel; 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
24 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL797/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Decision on Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBORO (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life), Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement), Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBORO (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madbar Sohel

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Decision on Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable error of law or procedure by the Director or the Adjudicator
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real/substantial risk of torture, ill-treatment, persecution or risk to life under the applicable legal tests
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review threshold is met given that judicial review is not a rehearing of merits

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or unreasonableness in the Director's or Adjudicator's decisions; their findings were open on the facts and 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 be refused.