MIZANUR RAHMAN v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

MIZANUR RAHMAN v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural ground was identified; the Director and the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the claim as localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness to warrant judicial review; consequently leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1074
Parties
Applicant: Mizanur Rahman; Putative Respondent: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL334/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Decision / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Screening and Appeal
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review +3 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mizanur Rahman

Applicant

Immigration Department

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Decision / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or breached procedural fairness in rejecting the non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether past ill-treatment and alleged targeting by political actors amounted to risk of persecution or torture on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available or the dispute was a private matter

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural ground was identified; the Director and the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the claim as localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness to warrant judicial review; consequently leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.