SHAHZAD KHURRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAHZAD KHURRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and the availability of internal relocation in Pakistan negated entitlement to non-refoulement protection.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 183
Parties
Applicant: Shahzad Khurram; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1486/2018
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, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahzad Khurram

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case (interpreting/translating documents and hearing)
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were justifiable and reviewable on leave application

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and the availability of internal relocation in Pakistan negated entitlement to non-refoulement protection.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused