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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, their findings on risk, state protection and relocation were open to them on the evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1889
Parties
Applicant: Rakhim Mudassar; 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
5 October 2018
Case Number
HCAL1137/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), ICCPR Articles 6 and 7, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Prohibition of Torture Non Refoulement Torture Risk Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) +4 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rakhim Mudassar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Adjudicator acted unlawfully, unreasonably or unfairly in assessing the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established substantial grounds for fearing torture or treatment breaching BOR 2/3 or persecution under the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or internal relocation was available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, their findings on risk, state protection and relocation were open to them on the evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Notification of the decision sent to the applicant, putative respondent and putative interested party on 05/10/2018.