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

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

Leave refused because the adjudicator conducted a careful and detailed rehearing, properly considered evidence and COI, made clear credibility findings supported by reasons, applied correct legal principles on torture/CIDTP/persecution/right to life and state protection, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1246
Parties
Applicant: Masud; 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
11 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL570/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (oral Hearing; Leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Bill of Rights (bor), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masud

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 / Decision on Leave Application (oral Hearing; Leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in credibility findings and fact‑finding
  2. 2 Whether State protection was properly considered and analysed
  3. 3 Whether up‑to‑date country of origin information (COI) was considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the adjudicator conducted a careful and detailed rehearing, properly considered evidence and COI, made clear credibility findings supported by reasons, applied correct legal principles on torture/CIDTP/persecution/right to life and state protection, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused