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

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

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision on BOR 2; the Board's findings on past harm, state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the application to extend time to challenge the Board's First Decision was not justified and is dismissed; accordingly there is no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 90
Parties
Applicant: Shakeel; 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
13 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL178/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided on Paper (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), CIDTP (hkbor Article 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) CIDTP (hkbor Article 3) +5 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shakeel

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 / Leave Application Decided on Paper (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting BOR 2 (right to life) risk
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural impropriety or unfairness in the Board's handling of COI and evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision on BOR 2; the Board's findings on past harm, state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the application to extend time to challenge the Board's First Decision was not justified and is dismissed; accordingly there is no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for extension of time to challenge the Board's First Decision dismissed