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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments fell within its fact-finding province and were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2852
Parties
Applicant: Shehzad Saeed; 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
5 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL987/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused on Paper (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Risk to Life (bor Article 2), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk to Life (bor Article 2) Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33) +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shehzad Saeed

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 Refused on Paper (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board's assessment of credibility was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established real risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments fell within its fact-finding province and were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed