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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's decision disclosed no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant's grounds were unparticularised, contained duplications and irrelevant material, and the claim was not reasonably arguable with no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 782
Parties
Applicant: Zeeshan 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
17 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL1667/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution (refugee Law), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration and Asylum Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution (refugee Law) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zeeshan Khan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator erred in law in assessing credibility
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the appeal hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's decision disclosed no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant's grounds were unparticularised, contained duplications and irrelevant material, and the claim was not reasonably arguable with no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused