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

SALIM MD 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’s adverse credibility and risk findings were reasonable, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and no real prospect of success on public law grounds.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2697
Parties
Applicant: SALIM MD; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1284/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused on Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review — Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SALIM MD

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board’s adverse credibility findings were irrational or involved error of law
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of proscribed harm (torture, BOR 2 or BOR 3, persecution) on return to Bangladesh
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility and risk findings were reasonable, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and no real prospect of success on public law grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused