ALE M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALE M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board rationally concluded the risk was a private domestic matter, effective police protection and reasonable internal relocation in Nepal were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1523
Parties
Applicant: Ale Mina; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL963/2017
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 Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Domestic Violence as Persecution
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee and Asylum Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ale Mina

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or ill-treatment if returned to Nepal
  2. 2 Whether domestic violence by the applicant's husband constitutes persecution attracting non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection and internal relocation in Nepal are available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board rationally concluded the risk was a private domestic matter, effective police protection and reasonable internal relocation in Nepal were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.