MOHAMMAD RAYHAN UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD RAYHAN UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the adjudicator lawfully conducted a rehearing, provided rational and supported reasons for adverse credibility and document-authenticity findings, afforded procedural fairness including opportunity to provide translations, applied the correct legal principles on torture/CIDTP/persecution, and the substantive decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore none of the grounds were reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1727
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Rayhan Uddin; 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
31 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL755/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, CIDTP, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk CIDTP +5 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Rayhan Uddin

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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator erred by refusing adjournment for translations and thereby denied procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator irrationally disbelieved the applicant and mis-assessed credibility
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator improperly relied on country of origin information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the adjudicator lawfully conducted a rehearing, provided rational and supported reasons for adverse credibility and document-authenticity findings, afforded procedural fairness including opportunity to provide translations, applied the correct legal principles on torture/CIDTP/persecution, and the substantive decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore none of the grounds were reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused