MOFIJUR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MOFIJUR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave for judicial review was refused because the Board reasonably and lawfully found the applicant's evidence to be materially inconsistent and not credible, the claim was therefore unsubstantiated, and the Board's conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 586
Parties
Applicant: Mofijur; Putative Respondent: Adjudicator of the 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
13 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1454/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (prohibition of Cidtp), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation at Appeal
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life) +5 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mofijur

Applicant

Adjudicator of the 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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator conducted a fair hearing for a self-represented claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself by requiring past torture to infer future risk
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider or update Country of Origin Information and other reports

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the Board reasonably and lawfully found the applicant's evidence to be materially inconsistent and not credible, the claim was therefore unsubstantiated, and the Board's conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be irrational; the applicant failed to demonstrate unfairness or a legal error giving a reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed