SHARIF MUHAMMAD UMER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHARIF MUHAMMAD UMER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; those bodies reasonably found the risk localized, no specific targeting or state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1339
Parties
Applicant: Sharif Muhammad Umer; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1530/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +3 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharif Muhammad Umer

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant
  2. 2 State acquiescence and state protection
  3. 3 Assessment and use of Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; those bodies reasonably found the risk localized, no specific targeting or state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, so judicial review would improperly re-hear factual assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused