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

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

Leave refused because applicants' grounds were vague and unparticularised, the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk to be localized and internal relocation feasible, the alleged procedural unfairness (late bundle) caused no evident prejudice, and there was no arguable error of law or procedure warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 229
Parties
1st Applicant: Ahmed Samir; 2nd Applicant: Khatoon Rabia; 3rd Applicant: Ahmed Wadud; 4th Applicant: Ahmed Afaq; 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
25 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL919/2017
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 Risk, HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life, HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Samir

1st Applicant

Khatoon Rabia

2nd Applicant

Ahmed Wadud

3rd Applicant

Ahmed Afaq

4th 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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board's and Director's decisions were unreasonable or irrational in public law sense

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicants' grounds were vague and unparticularised, the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk to be localized and internal relocation feasible, the alleged procedural unfairness (late bundle) caused no evident prejudice, and there was no arguable error of law or procedure warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave refused