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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's findings on BOR2 risk; the Board's conclusions that there was insufficient evidence of a real risk to life, that state protection was available and internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1539
Parties
Applicant: Alamo Michael Manuel; 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
24 May 2022
Case Number
HCAL661/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (bor2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor3), Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (bor2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor3) +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alamo Michael Manuel

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's Second Decision on BOR2 risk was legally flawed, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to justify granting leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation render the risk speculative or low

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's findings on BOR2 risk; the Board's conclusions that there was insufficient evidence of a real risk to life, that state protection was available and internal relocation viable meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed