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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularize any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the adverse credibility findings and factual assessments by the Director and the Board were within their discretionary domain and there was no basis for the court to intervene under judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1593
Parties
Applicant: Mizan Sikder; 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
3 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL48/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement), Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement) +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mizan Sikder

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularize any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the adverse credibility findings and factual assessments by the Director and the Board were within their discretionary domain and there was no basis for the court to intervene under judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.