MIAH MD NAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MIAH MD NAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were vague and lacking particulars, he failed to attend the hearing, the Director and Board made reasoned findings (inconsistencies, low and localized risk, available state protection and internal relocation), and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1628
Parties
Applicant: Miah Md Nayan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL375/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave Application for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Proof, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk State Protection Internal Relocation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miah Md Nayan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave Application for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself by requiring past torture to infer future risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to take into account relevant and up-to-date country of origin information
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted irrationally or cherry-picked COI and facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were vague and lacking particulars, he failed to attend the hearing, the Director and Board made reasoned findings (inconsistencies, low and localized risk, available state protection and internal relocation), and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused