RE AV

RE AV

The claim was dismissed because the harm alleged arose from private persons without any evidence of state involvement or acquiescence required by Article 1 CAT, the applicant did not demonstrate a foreseeable real risk of torture, and repeated opportunities to present her case meant the lack of an oral hearing did not prejudice her case.

Citation
RE AV
Parties
Applicant: AV; Respondent: Adjudicator; Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Case Number
HCAL134/2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture, Article 3 CAT (non Refoulement), Article 1 CAT (definition of Torture), Procedural Fairness, Screening Process and Cooperation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Convention Against Torture Article 3 CAT (non Refoulement) Article 1 CAT (definition of Torture) Procedural Fairness +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AV

Applicant

Adjudicator

Respondent

Director of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established substantial grounds for believing she would face torture if returned
  2. 2 Whether alleged threats by private actors engage Article 1 CAT via state involvement or acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to cooperate with screening justified determination on available information

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the harm alleged arose from private persons without any evidence of state involvement or acquiescence required by Article 1 CAT, the applicant did not demonstrate a foreseeable real risk of torture, and repeated opportunities to present her case meant the lack of an oral hearing did not prejudice her case.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed