MOHAMMAD WAKIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD WAKIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the hearing and evidence, the risk identified was localized and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1031
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Wakil; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL965/2017
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 Claim, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claim Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR Internal Relocation +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Wakil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board made legal error or procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, persecution or other non-derogable harm on return to India
  3. 3 Whether state protection and reasonable internal relocation are available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the hearing and evidence, the risk identified was localized and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.