Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Iccpr articles 6 and 7

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL307/2018

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness: the Adjudicator conducted a rehearing, provided an interpreter, allowed the applicant to answer questions, applied the correct legal principles and reached a decision open on the facts; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
9 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL219/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator lawfully and fairly considered the evidence and COI, applied correct legal principles, reached conclusions open to him on the facts (including availability of internal relocation and lack of personal link to Boko Haram), and there was no arguable error of law or procedure and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
4 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL958/2017

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable basis of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness in the Adjudicator's rehearing; the Adjudicator's credibility findings and COI assessment were open to her on the facts and reasonable; where an appeal to the TCAB has been pursued and treated as a rehearing the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
19 Nov 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL333/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural impropriety or unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful rehearing, made credibility findings open on the evidence, gave adequate reasons and the grounds were generic, unparticularised and without realistic prospect of success.
5 Oct 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1137/2017

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, their findings on risk, state protection and relocation were open to them on the evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
25 Jun 2018

AWOLOR ANTHONY TOYIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL587/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and application of law were reasonable and lawful, he did not err in law or act unfairly in a way that undermines the decision, the new evidence would not have altered findings, and the application had no realistic prospect of success.
24 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL487/2017

The judge refused leave because the adjudicator's decision was carefully reasoned, involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard in the human rights context, and none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable; a six-day extension of time for filing was nevertheless granted as the delay was minimal.
17 Apr 2018

ALAM MOHAMMED MORSHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 730
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL647/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant advanced no arguable legal or procedural ground, failed to discharge the evidential burden to show a real risk of torture/persecution or breach of Articles 2/3 HKBORO, and the Director and Adjudicator gave lawful, reasonable and intelligible decisions open to them on the facts.
28 Mar 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL422/2017

The adjudicator made detailed findings that the applicant's account contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities, rejected his core factual claims and available evidence, concluded there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of BOR 2 on return, and applied the correct legal standards without procedural unfairness; therefore the claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
23 Feb 2018

BAPARI MD SHAHIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL411/2017

Leave was refused because the TCAB adjudicator conducted a de novo rehearing, carefully considered COI and documentary material, made supported credibility findings and applied the correct legal tests to claims of persecution, torture and breach of BOR Articles 2 and 3; there was no arguable error and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.