TALUKDAR MD JASHIM UDDIN v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

TALUKDAR MD JASHIM UDDIN v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Adjudicator legitimately disbelieved the applicant, leaving no factual foundation for non‑refoulement claims, procedural fairness was found to have been observed, the applicant's grounds were unsubstantiated, and there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 415
Parties
Applicant: Talukdar MD Jashim Uddin; Putative Respondent: Kevin Anthony Browne, the Adjudicator of the 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
25 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL1395/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Country of Origin Information, Credibility Assessment, Legal Representation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life +5 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Talukdar MD Jashim Uddin

Applicant

Kevin Anthony Browne, the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator lawfully and fairly assessed credibility and evidence
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was breached by late bundle service, language/interpreter issues or lack of legal representation
  3. 3 Whether past experience of torture is required to establish a real risk of future torture

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Adjudicator legitimately disbelieved the applicant, leaving no factual foundation for non‑refoulement claims, procedural fairness was found to have been observed, the applicant's grounds were unsubstantiated, and there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed