RAHMAN AZIZUL v. SIMON RUSSELL, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RAHMAN AZIZUL v. SIMON RUSSELL, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the applicant's inconsistent account; the applicant failed to substantiate legal or factual errors by the Adjudicator and did not demonstrate an arguable case for judicial review; evaluation of evidence is for the Board; therefore the application for leave had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 621
Parties
Applicant: Rahman Azizul; Putative Respondent: Simon Russell, the Adjudicator of the 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
15 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL995/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused; Earlier Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Set Aside
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Refugee Convention Article 33 Judicial Review Leave Procedural Fairness +1 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahman Azizul

Applicant

Simon Russell, the Adjudicator of the 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 Refused; Earlier Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Set Aside

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has arguable grounds to obtain leave for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion or acted procedurally unfairly
  3. 3 Whether the Board misapplied the law on torture and failed to consider COI

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the applicant's inconsistent account; the applicant failed to substantiate legal or factual errors by the Adjudicator and did not demonstrate an arguable case for judicial review; evaluation of evidence is for the Board; therefore the application for leave had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Order dated 28 November 2018 dismissing the application for want of prosecution set aside
  • Application for leave for judicial review refused and the applicant's application for leave dismissed