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

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

The adjudicator's adverse credibility finding was rationally based on stark and material inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts; she considered relevant COI and issues material to the claim; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no misapplication of standards that would render the decision...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2053
Parties
Applicant: Amburose Edward; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL185/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening Decision) / Leave Stage Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review Leave to Apply, Credibility Assessment, Extended State Acquiescence, Country Information (coi), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Torture, Persecution, Right to Life
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave to Apply Credibility Assessment +7 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amburose Edward

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening Decision) / Leave Stage Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's adjudicator made errors of law or procedural unfairness in refusing protection
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to investigate or consider relevant country information and extended state acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were justified given inconsistencies in the applicant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's adverse credibility finding was rationally based on stark and material inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts; she considered relevant COI and issues material to the claim; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no misapplication of standards that would render the decision Wednesbury unreasonable; consequently the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review is refused. Additionally, the Director's screening decision is not reviewable where an appeal to the Board has been pursued.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Notification dated 13 September 2018 sent to the applicant and putative respondents