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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant could not show a reasonable prospect of success; there was no evidence the Board erred in law or made unreasonable factual findings, and evaluation of the evidence properly lay with the Director and the Board.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1287
Parties
Applicant: Rasheed Adil; 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
24 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1874/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Prohibition of CIDTP (hkbor Article 3), Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Judicial Review Leave Application, Standard of Review and Evaluation of Evidence, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasheed Adil

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed legal error in applying the law
  2. 2 Whether the Board's factual findings were irrational or unfair
  3. 3 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe applicant faced risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant could not show a reasonable prospect of success; there was no evidence the Board erred in law or made unreasonable factual findings, and evaluation of the evidence properly lay with the Director and the Board.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed