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

SOHEB MD 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 observed the required high standard of fairness, the applicant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, the Board reasonably relied on credible COI, its adverse credibility and factual findings fell within its exclusive fact-finding province and did not involve error of law, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1882
Parties
Applicant: Soheb Md; 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
29 June 2021
Case Number
HCAL826/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Country of Origin Information, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof, Interpreter Assistance, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Judicial Review +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soheb Md

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)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lack of legal and language assistance rendered the Board hearing procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Board improperly weighted or cherry-picked Country of Origin Information
  3. 3 Whether the Director/Board used a templated or standardized assessment amounting to an improper assessment of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board observed the required high standard of fairness, the applicant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, the Board reasonably relied on credible COI, its adverse credibility and factual findings fell within its exclusive fact-finding province and did not involve error of law, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.