SHAHID MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAHID MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground for judicial review; the Board's adverse credibility finding after oral evidence and its conclusions on state protection and reasonable internal relocation were untainted by legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2137
Parties
Applicant: Shahid Mohammed; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL628/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life Article 2 HKBOR, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Right to Life Article 2 HKBOR +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahid Mohammed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is any reasonably arguable basis to obtain leave for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board or Director made an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real and foreseeable risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground for judicial review; the Board's adverse credibility finding after oral evidence and its conclusions on state protection and reasonable internal relocation were untainted by legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused