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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Directors and the Boards decisions; the Boards adverse credibility finding was supported by the evidence and, in any event, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1691
Parties
Applicant: Rehim Abdul; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL459/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standards
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Credibility Findings +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rehim Abdul

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or persecution if returned to Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in making an adverse credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation are available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Directors and the Boards decisions; the Boards adverse credibility finding was supported by the evidence and, in any event, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.