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

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

The adjudicator lawfully evaluated the evidence, properly placed no weight on a case composed almost entirely of hearsay, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and reached findings that were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1743
Parties
Applicant: Md Baten; 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
8 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL730/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat Risk, CIDTP (article 3 Bor/iccpr), Refugee Persecution (1951 Convention), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture/cat Risk CIDTP (article 3 Bor/iccpr) +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Baten

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; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by serving the appeal bundle in English without translation
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator irrationally or unlawfully rejected the applicant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator improperly relied on country of origin information, hearsay or out‑of‑date material

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator lawfully evaluated the evidence, properly placed no weight on a case composed almost entirely of hearsay, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and reached findings that were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused on 8 August 2018.