SHAIK NURUZZAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIK NURUZZAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by evidence and the conclusions that state protection and internal relocation made the risk low were lawful and rational, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2574
Parties
Applicant: Shaik Nuruzzama; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL16/2019
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, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Test, Procedural Fairness, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (torture), Article 33 Refugee Convention
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment +6 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaik Nuruzzama

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 leave for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director or Torture Claims Appeal Board committed an error of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant faces real risk of torture, ill-treatment or persecution from private creditors

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by evidence and the conclusions that state protection and internal relocation made the risk low were lawful and rational, so 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.