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

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

Leave refused because the Director and TCAB lawfully applied relevant legal principles, relied on credible COI, made a sustainable adverse credibility finding that the applicant was not a genuine convert, correctly considered and rejected State acquiescence, found state protection and internal relocation available, and committed no error of law or procedural unfairness; the application was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1666
Parties
Applicant: Raza Asif; 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
25 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL742/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Refused leave to apply for judicial review
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Article 3 Bor/iccpr (cidtp), Article 2 Bor/iccpr (right to Life), State Acquiescence, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Standard of Judicial Review (wednesbury/enhanced), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat Article 3 Bor/iccpr (cidtp) +6 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

Raza Asif

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 Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces a real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC/Article 1 CAT
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces CIDTP under Article 3 BOR/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention (Articles 33 and 1A(2))

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director and TCAB lawfully applied relevant legal principles, relied on credible COI, made a sustainable adverse credibility finding that the applicant was not a genuine convert, correctly considered and rejected State acquiescence, found state protection and internal relocation available, and committed no error of law or procedural unfairness; the application was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Refused leave to apply for judicial review

Orders

  • Refused leave to apply for judicial review (notification dated 25 July 2018)