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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's findings on credibility, risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by the evidence, contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 485
Parties
Applicant: Shah Yasir; 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
1 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1215/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Prohibition of CIDTP, Right to Life, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition of CIDTP +7 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shah Yasir

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 / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in its assessment of risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board's credibility findings and identification of inconsistencies were justified
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of torture or CIDTP on return (Immigration Ordinance Part VII C; HKBOR s.8 Art 3)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's findings on credibility, risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by the evidence, contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed