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

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

The Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the appeal bundle was served in accordance with procedural rules, the Applicant had access to assistance and interpreters, and the Adjudicator applied the correct legal standards and made defensible findings; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and is refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 24
Parties
Applicant: Sorip Khan; 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
8 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL455/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/convention Against Torture, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Screening and Appeal Process, Internal Relocation, Right to Legal Representation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture/convention Against Torture Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Leave +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sorip Khan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator unlawfully fettered his discretion
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in service of the appeal bundle and hearing arrangements
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator relied on outdated or hearsay material

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the appeal bundle was served in accordance with procedural rules, the Applicant had access to assistance and interpreters, and the Adjudicator applied the correct legal standards and made defensible findings; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.