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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had already allowed the applicant's appeal and found he was entitled to non-refoulement protection, thus any judicial review would be otiose and serve no practical purpose.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3795
Parties
Applicant: Siddik; 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
30 December 2022
Case Number
HCAL771/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused (notification)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (prohibition of Torture/cidtp), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Otiose Remedy/practical Futility, Witness Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (prohibition of Torture/cidtp) +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siddik

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted where the appellate body has allowed the applicant's appeal
  2. 2 Whether granting relief would be otiose because the Board's decision removed the relevant detriment
  3. 3 Whether the Board correctly assessed BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk and admissibility of hearsay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had already allowed the applicant's appeal and found he was entitled to non-refoulement protection, thus any judicial review would be otiose and serve no practical purpose.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed