RAHMAN ZAIWR UR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RAHMAN ZAIWR UR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown in the Director's or Board's decisions; their assessments that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that credibility concerns undermined the claim were within the decision-makers' fact-finding role and not for the court to overturn on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 470
Parties
Applicant: Rahman Zaiwr Ur; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL289/2018
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 (part VIIC Cap 115), BOR Article 3, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave Procedure, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Cap 115) BOR Article 3 +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahman Zaiwr Ur

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established arguable grounds for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether failure to consider state acquiescence or its extended form was an error

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown in the Director's or Board's decisions; their assessments that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that credibility concerns undermined the claim were within the decision-makers' fact-finding role and not for the court to overturn on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.