MAROOF AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MAROOF AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board reasonably assessed the risk as low, found internal relocation and state protection available, and the matter concerned factual evaluation not amenable to judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2367
Parties
Applicant: Maroof Ahmed; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL400/2018
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, Internal Relocation, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +3 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

Maroof Ahmed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in assessing the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces a real risk of torture or violation of HKBOR Articles 2 or 3 on return to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether effective state or police protection is available to the Applicant in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board reasonably assessed the risk as low, found internal relocation and state protection available, and the matter concerned factual evaluation not amenable to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused