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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision to dismiss the non-refoulement claim was lawfully reached, supported by adequate reasons, not Wednesbury unreasonable, free of legal error and procedural unfairness, the Director had conducted the required screening including BOR2, the applicant had access to representation and interpretation, and the complaints were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2772
Parties
Applicant: Asha Dullah; 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 December 2018
Case Number
HCAL471/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Non Refoulement / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asha Dullah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Non Refoulement / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator/Board fettered discretion or misdirected in law
  2. 2 Alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate representation by duty lawyer
  3. 3 Whether the Board irrationally or unreasonably evaluated evidence and COI

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision to dismiss the non-refoulement claim was lawfully reached, supported by adequate reasons, not Wednesbury unreasonable, free of legal error and procedural unfairness, the Director had conducted the required screening including BOR2, the applicant had access to representation and interpretation, and the complaints were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave refused.