AZOFA v. ALEXANDRA LO, ESQ, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AZOFA v. ALEXANDRA LO, ESQ, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unsupported by particulars; the Board's and Director's findings that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no procedural unfairness were supported by the record and did not disclose any legal error or irrationality reasonably arguable on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1685
Parties
Applicant: Azofa; Putative Respondent: Alexandra Lo, Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL783/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk State Protection Internal Relocation +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azofa

Applicant

Alexandra Lo, Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider or relied improperly on Country of Origin Information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether state/police protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unsupported by particulars; the Board's and Director's findings that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no procedural unfairness were supported by the record and did not disclose any legal error or irrationality reasonably arguable on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.