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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and there was no realistic prospect of success given the findings of localized risk, availability of internal relocation and proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1785
Parties
Applicant: Sorder Md Mizan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL63/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Procedural Fairness Internal Relocation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sorder Md Mizan

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 (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed an error of law
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the decision-making process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and there was no realistic prospect of success given the findings of localized risk, availability of internal relocation and proper consideration of evidence and COI.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.