MD ABDULLAH AL MAMUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MD ABDULLAH AL MAMUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board’s findings that the applicant lacked credibility, that the risk of serious harm was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was possible were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonableness; the applicant therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 933
Parties
Applicant: Md Abdullah Al Mamun; 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
14 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1420/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Consideration on the Papers (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Abdullah Al Mamun

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 / Consideration on the Papers (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board’s decision involved error of law
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board’s decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicant’s factual evidence was credible

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board’s findings that the applicant lacked credibility, that the risk of serious harm was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was possible were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonableness; the applicant therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.