KHANAM MASUMA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

KHANAM MASUMA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants’ grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; the Director and the Board had reasonably and lawfully assessed the evidence, finding low and localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or fettering of discretion and therefore no prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 506
Parties
1st Applicant: Khanam Masuma; 2nd Applicant: Alamgir Fatimah; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL523/2018
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 (article 33 Refugee Convention), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Fettering Discretion, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khanam Masuma

1st Applicant

Alamgir Fatimah

2nd 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 the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director erred in assessing risk levels for non-refoulement (torture/Article 3/BOR2/Article 33)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants’ grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; the Director and the Board had reasonably and lawfully assessed the evidence, finding low and localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or fettering of discretion and therefore no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused