MAJID ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MAJID ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no basis for non‑refoulement protection, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 439
Parties
Applicant: Majid Abdul; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Case Number
HCAL1925/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Test, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Majid Abdul

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the Applicant’s non‑refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faced a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non‑derogable rights on return to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or reasonable internal relocation was available

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no basis for non‑refoulement protection, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.