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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator afforded the applicant adequate opportunity, properly put and considered COI, made supported credibility findings and gave reasons; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision is not subject to leave once appeal to the Board is pursued.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2416
Parties
Applicant: Munna Mohammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL327/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Ill Treatment, Refugee Law, Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and Ill Treatment Refugee Law Judicial Review +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munna Mohammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to inform applicant that COI and other materials would be used
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator failed to properly consider COI on Bangladesh and state protection
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider extended state acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator afforded the applicant adequate opportunity, properly put and considered COI, made supported credibility findings and gave reasons; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision is not subject to leave once appeal to the Board is pursued.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused (Order 53 r.3)