MD KAOSAR ACON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MD KAOSAR ACON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lack particulars; the Director and the Board provided adequate reasons; objective evidence showed low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1587
Parties
Applicant: Md Kaosar Acon; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL24/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Country of Origin Information, Procedural Impropriety, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Kaosar Acon

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution
  2. 2 Whether internal relocation in Bangladesh was reasonable and available
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lack particulars; the Director and the Board provided adequate reasons; objective evidence showed low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused