SIDDIQ MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SIDDIQ MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's reasoned findings that the risk was localized, of low intensity, and that internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 604
Parties
Applicant: Siddiq Mohammed Abubakar; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL80/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +6 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siddiq Mohammed Abubakar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted to challenge the Board's rejection of a non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director or Board committed legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in assessing risk and internal relocation
  3. 3 Whether private threats over a debt satisfy the threshold for torture, BOR or persecution protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's reasoned findings that the risk was localized, of low intensity, and that internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.