MANNAN ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

MANNAN ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground: key substantive claims lacked merit on their face, the applicant admitted facts that undermined asserted procedural unfairness, the TCAB decision was not shown to involve legal error or Wednesbury-unreasonableness, and the application was an abuse of process used to delay removal.

Citation
MANNAN ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Mannan Abdul; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE; Putative Interested Party: THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Case Number
HCAL472/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (bor 3), Right to Life (bor 2), Refugee Convention/persecution, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave, Duty Lawyer Representation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (bor 3) Right to Life (bor 2) +5 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mannan Abdul

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Putative Respondent

THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB adjudicator erred in law or acted Wednesbury-unreasonably
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness due to lack of legal representation or language assistance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground: key substantive claims lacked merit on their face, the applicant admitted facts that undermined asserted procedural unfairness, the TCAB decision was not shown to involve legal error or Wednesbury-unreasonableness, and the application was an abuse of process used to delay removal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused