SHEIKH MOHAMMOD SUBUJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHEIKH MOHAMMOD SUBUJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both bodies applied correct legal principles, their factual findings (low and localized risk, availability of state protection or internal relocation) were open on the evidence, and judicial review is not a vehicle to re-evaluate such findings.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1545
Parties
Applicant: Sheikh Mohammod Subuj; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1517/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused on Consideration of Documents
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Refugee Convention Article 33, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Application
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Mohammod Subuj

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused on Consideration of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (BOR 3)
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant faces a real risk to life (BOR 2)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both bodies applied correct legal principles, their factual findings (low and localized risk, availability of state protection or internal relocation) were open on the evidence, and judicial review is not a vehicle to re-evaluate such findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.