SALAH UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SALAH UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and reasonable internal relocation negate risk were lawful and left no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1447
Parties
Applicant: Salah Uddin; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1041/2018
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, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salah Uddin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Applicant faces real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance and Article 3 HKBOR
  2. 2 Whether Applicant faces persecution for purposes of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are reasonable and negate non-refoulement risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and reasonable internal relocation negate risk were lawful and left no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.