SHAIFUL AHMED KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIFUL AHMED KHAN 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 findings were supported by the record, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law in the Board’s decision, the Director’s findings on state protection and internal relocation were open to the Board, and the applicant had no real prospect of success warranting leave.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 616
Parties
Applicant: Shaiful Ahmed Khan; 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
16 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1273/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness to Unrepresented Claimants, Non Refoulement, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Torture and CIDTP Credibility Findings Procedural Fairness to Unrepresented Claimants +4 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaiful Ahmed Khan

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's adverse credibility findings were irrational or amounted to an error of law
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness required greater protections because the applicant was unrepresented
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director erred in assessing risk of torture, CIDTP, or persecution and the availability of state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by the record, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law in the Board’s decision, the Director’s findings on state protection and internal relocation were open to the Board, and the applicant had no real prospect of success warranting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.