Ti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 35/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 June 2017.
1. The Applicant filed a non-refoulement claim under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). His basis is that he fears being harmed or killed by people from the Awami League (AL) because he refused to switch allegiance from the supporting Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and had refused to commit perjury by being a false witness to the death of an AL member who is the elder brother of his friend.
|
HCAL 35/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 35 of 2017 ____________
____________
__________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ 1.The Applicant filed a non-refoulement claim under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). His basis is that he fears being harmed or killed by people from the Awami League (AL) because he refused to switch allegiance from the supporting Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and had refused to commit perjury by being a false witness to the death of an AL member who is the elder brother of his friend. 2.The application was refused by both the Director of Immigration (Director’s Decision) on 2 January 2015 and by the Adjudicator[1] on 31 July 2015 (the Adjudicator’s decision). 3.On 13 February 2017 he applied for leave to judicially review the decision by the Director and the Adjudicator. The Applicant requested an oral hearing. 4.The Applicant failed to appear at his hearing this morning in his application for leave to judicial review. 5.Despite the Applicant’s absence, I have considered the application. I have perused the documents in support of the application including inter-alia the above two decisions, the relief sought and the grounds relied on by the Applicant. Having considered the merits of the application, the application for an extension of time to judicial review the Director’s Decision and leave to judicial review the Adjudicator’s Decision are refused. 6.The Adjudicator’s decision found that the Applicant did not establish a substantial risk of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or of persecution. The Adjudicator however also found against the Applicant on credibility. These were his findings of facts. He took into account all the relevant factors when making his assessment. He found the Applicant was not an honest and credible witness and failed to establish his case. On that basis he dismissed the Applicant’s claim. 7.I see no fault in the Adjudicator’s assessment of the Applicant. I see no reasonably arguable challenge to the Adjudicator’s decision. 8.Leave for judicial review is refused.
The Applicant acting in person – absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||