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

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

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances to challenge the Director's decision, the Board had considered the appeal and made adverse credibility and factual findings which are within its primary jurisdiction, and the application had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 551
Parties
Applicant: MD Wahid; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1560/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Procedural Impropriety, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD Wahid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave for judicial review may be sought against the Director's non-refoulement decisions without exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether adverse credibility findings by the Board/Adjudicator preclude judicial intervention
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board committed procedural impropriety by failing to make independent COI inquiries or by 'cherry-picking' information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances to challenge the Director's decision, the Board had considered the appeal and made adverse credibility and factual findings which are within its primary jurisdiction, and the application had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation.

Court Disposition

Leave for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse to grant leave for judicial review of the Director's decisions
  • Dismiss the applicant's application for leave for judicial review of the Board's decision