SIDDIK ABU v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SIDDIK ABU v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director and the Appeal Board made reasoned, rational credibility and risk assessments based on evidence; the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions, and the availability of reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh further negated the need for protection, rendering the judicial review application devoid of prospects of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1014
Parties
Applicant: Siddik Abu; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL526/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siddik Abu

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture such that non-refoulement protection is required
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board made legal errors, procedural unfairness or irrational findings in rejecting the claim
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Bangladesh is reasonable and would obviate need for protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Appeal Board made reasoned, rational credibility and risk assessments based on evidence; the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions, and the availability of reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh further negated the need for protection, rendering the judicial review application devoid of prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.