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

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

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural error was established; the Adjudicator afforded a fair hearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a decision open on the facts; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 18
Parties
Applicant: Raza Waleed; 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
30 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL170/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (papers Considered; No Oral Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBORO (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life), 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement), Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBORO (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raza Waleed

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 (papers Considered; No Oral Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant showed an arguable case of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness to obtain leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator committed error of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/BOR claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real personal risk of torture, persecution or deprivation of life

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural error was established; the Adjudicator afforded a fair hearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a decision open on the facts; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.