BARBIN SHERYRLL PERALTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BARBIN SHERYRLL PERALTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Board considered the merits and gave reasons; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2066
Parties
Applicant: Barbin Sheryrll Peralta; 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
8 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL684/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +5 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbin Sheryrll Peralta

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claim
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's process
  3. 3 Whether the Board's findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board considered the merits and gave reasons; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
  • Application dismissed.