ZAMAN ADIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ZAMAN ADIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [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 finding was properly reached after oral evidence and the Board and Director reasonably concluded state protection and internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2225
Parties
Applicant: Zaman Adil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL857/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Papers and Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Internal Relocation +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaman Adil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Papers and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of HKBOR Articles 2 or 3 on return
  3. 3 Whether state/police protection would be available

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 finding was properly reached after oral evidence and the Board and Director reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation made return safe, so 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.