MOHAMMED KHALIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMED KHALIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the risk was found to be localized, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and the decisions withstand rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1112
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Khalil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1015/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Khalil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonably arguable ground for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in assessing risk of torture, BOR Article 3 risk or persecution risk
  3. 3 Whether state/police protection was available on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the risk was found to be localized, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and the decisions withstand rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.