RAHMAN ABDUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RAHMAN ABDUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused leave because the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, made justified credibility findings and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1734
Parties
Applicant: Rahman Abdur; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL746/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Convention Against Torture, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information, BOR 2, BOR 3
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Convention Against Torture +6 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahman Abdur

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real risk of torture or ill-treatment amounting to non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether the Director and Adjudicator erred in law or acted irrationally (Wednesbury) in refusing protection
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the decision-making process

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, made justified credibility findings and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant's claim 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.
  • Application dismissed for want of a reasonably arguable case and no realistic prospect of success.