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

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

The applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the claimed risks were speculative or insufficient to meet the high BOR 3/persecution threshold were open to the adjudicator on the evidence; evaluation of risk is for the Director and the Board and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 422
Parties
Applicant: Agara Isaiah Bishop; 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
2 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL977/2017
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, Torture/cidtp, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 and 3, Double Jeopardy/double Prosecution, Country of Origin Information (coi), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 and 3 +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agara Isaiah Bishop

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 Board erred in law by treating the applicant's double jeopardy and alleged MASSOB affiliation claims as speculative
  2. 2 Whether the Board improperly relied on irrelevant COI (UK/EU) in assessing prison conditions in Nigeria
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to consider COI showing risk of military detention and deprivation of rights if prosecuted for MASSOB links

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the claimed risks were speculative or insufficient to meet the high BOR 3/persecution threshold were open to the adjudicator on the evidence; evaluation of risk is for the Director and the Board and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.