NASIR ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

NASIR ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and the Board reasonably concluded that the risk of ill-treatment on return to Pakistan was low given the dated and low‑intensity nature of past incidents, the availability of state protection and feasible internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2965
Parties
Applicant: Nasir Abdul; 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
6 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL677/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave Test
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasir Abdul

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator applied correct legal test in credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether primary evidence was improperly discounted
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and the Board reasonably concluded that the risk of ill-treatment on return to Pakistan was low given the dated and low‑intensity nature of past incidents, the availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation, and there was no demonstrable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in their credibility assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.