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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the Board and Director lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and documentary evidence in the round, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and no prospect of success on the proposed judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2804
Parties
Applicant: AB; 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
28 December 2018
Case Number
HCAL903/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity and Forgery, Statelessness, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Torture and Article 3 BOR Risk, Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity and Forgery +5 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator irrationally or unfairly assessed the applicant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator improperly alleged or inferred forgery of identity and travel documents without cogent evidence
  3. 3 Whether excessive weight was placed on lack of Immigration Department records of entry to Hong Kong

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the Board and Director lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and documentary evidence in the round, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and no prospect of success on the proposed judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused