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

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

Under rigorous examination the Adjudicator's decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational; the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from late service of the bundle or lack of representation and therefore had no real prospect of success on judicial review, so leave is refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 677
Parties
Applicant: Md Tanvir; 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
18 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL755/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Application for Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution Risk, BOR2 Risk, BOR3 Risk, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Internal Relocation, Standard of Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution Risk +7 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Tanvir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the Board's refusal of the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness by serving the appeal bundle only days before the hearing
  3. 3 Whether lack of legal representation or language difficulties caused prejudice to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Under rigorous examination the Adjudicator's decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational; the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from late service of the bundle or lack of representation and therefore had no real prospect of success on judicial review, so leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.