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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2709
Parties
Applicant: Shah Abdullah; 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
2 September 2022
Case Number
HCAL689/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee/asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shah Abdullah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP on refoulement (HKBOR Art 2 and Art 3, Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC)
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were supported by the record.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed