MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularize any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness, failed to adduce or identify additional relevant facts, and the Director and Board reasonably and lawfully assessed the risk as low with available state protection and internal relocation; judicial review is not the forum to rehear merits absent legal error.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1700
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Ibrahim; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL501/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Persecution Risk, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture) Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Persecution Risk +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Ibrahim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant identified any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness arose from failure to read/interpret decisions or hearing bundle for an illiterate unrepresented applicant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant received the Director's invitation to submit further facts and whether non-receipt rendered the process unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularize any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness, failed to adduce or identify additional relevant facts, and the Director and Board reasonably and lawfully assessed the risk as low with available state protection and internal relocation; judicial review is not the forum to rehear merits absent legal error.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.