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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by the evidence (including the applicant's refusal to give evidence), and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available such that there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 426
Parties
Applicant: Sohel Mohammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL439/2018
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 (article 3 Hkbor), Risk of Persecution (article 33 1951 Convention), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture (article 3 Hkbor) Risk of Persecution (article 33 1951 Convention) Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sohel Mohammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions warranting leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or persecution on return to Bangladesh
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Bangladesh is reasonable and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by the evidence (including the applicant's refusal to give evidence), and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available such that 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 refused.