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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, imminence of threats, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were lawful, rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 769
Parties
Applicant: Rahaman Habib; 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 April 2023
Case Number
HCAL737/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Asylum and Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection Internal Relocation +4 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahaman Habib

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture or other serious harm on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, imminence of threats, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were lawful, rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed