MIAH MOHAMMED ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MIAH MOHAMMED ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation negated a real risk were open to them on the evidence, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2717
Parties
Applicant: Miah Mohammed Arshad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL295/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +4 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miah Mohammed Arshad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director committed procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the credibility findings were irrational or perverse
  3. 3 Whether there was a real personal risk attracting non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation negated a real risk were open to them on the evidence, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.