IDREES FAISAL AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

IDREES FAISAL AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the TCAB/adjudicator and Director reasonably found applicants' evidence unreliable and contradictory, applied correct legal tests on torture/CIDTP/persecution and state protection, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the application for leave was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1163
Parties
1st Applicant: Idrees Faisal; 2nd Applicant: Faisal Saima; 3rd Applicant: Re:F; 4th Applicant: Re:A; 5th Applicant: Re:F; 6th Applicant: Re:I; 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
7 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL554/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Heard Orally; Leave Refused by Deputy High Court Judge (decision Dated 7 June 2018)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, CIDTP, Persecution, Right to Life, State Protection and Acquiescence, Country Information (coi) Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law International Human Rights Treaties Non Refoulement Torture Risk +7 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idrees Faisal

1st Applicant

Faisal Saima

2nd Applicant

Re:F

3rd Applicant

Re:A

4th Applicant

Re:F

5th Applicant

Re:I

6th Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Heard Orally; Leave Refused by Deputy High Court Judge (decision Dated 7 June 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/adjudicator erred in law or procedurally in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/CIDTP/persecution claims
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence/due diligence and COI were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the TCAB/adjudicator and Director reasonably found applicants' evidence unreliable and contradictory, applied correct legal tests on torture/CIDTP/persecution and state protection, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the application for leave was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (decision dated 7 June 2018)
  • Decision to be sent to applicants, putative respondent and putative interested party