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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board properly applied the law, acted fairly, and reached fact-based conclusions that internal relocation and state protection were available and that there was no personal risk from BJP; the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1257
Parties
Applicant: Roshan Khan; 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
29 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL541/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (leave to Amend Granted; Leave to Apply Refused)
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Unified Screening Mechanism, Refugee Convention/persecution
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Internal Relocation Wednesbury Unreasonableness Unified Screening Mechanism +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roshan Khan

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 Determined (leave to Amend Granted; Leave to Apply Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in finding internal relocation and state protection available
  2. 2 Whether the Board was irrational or procedurally unfair in its assessment
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a personal risk from the ruling party (BJP)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board properly applied the law, acted fairly, and reached fact-based conclusions that internal relocation and state protection were available and that there was no personal risk from BJP; the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the Form 86 to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as proposed respondent
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused