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

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

Leave is refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were rationally based and supported by detailed reasons, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and even on the applicant's own facts no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life was established; therefore no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review existed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1420
Parties
Applicant: Raza Amir; 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 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL652/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on 5 July 2018)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review Wednesbury, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raza Amir

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 (decision on 5 July 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in assessing credibility
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was denied by failure to translate appeal bundle or inform of complaint mechanism
  3. 3 Whether applicant established real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance s37U(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were rationally based and supported by detailed reasons, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and even on the applicant's own facts no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life was established; therefore no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.