WASEEM IBRAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

WASEEM IBRAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's detailed factual and credibility findings were within its primary fact-finding remit, were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3343
Parties
Applicant: Waseem Ibrar; 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
10 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL667/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused on Paper Under Order 53 R.3
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment State Protection +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waseem Ibrar

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 on Paper Under Order 53 R.3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in assessing risk of torture and CIDTP
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk to life contrary to BOR Article 2
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's detailed factual and credibility findings were within its primary fact-finding remit, were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed