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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions. The primary decision-makers lawfully assessed the evidence, concluded the risk was localized and low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and exercised discretion appropriately regarding representation, translation and oral hearing; judicial review is not a forum to retry these factual evaluations.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1047
Parties
Applicant: Barroga Escolastica Tejero; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1540/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part Viic), Article 3 HKBOR (bor 3), Article 2 HKBOR (bor 2), Persecution/convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Article 33, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Right to Legal Representation, Language Assistance
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part Viic) Article 3 HKBOR (bor 3) Article 2 HKBOR (bor 2) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barroga Escolastica Tejero

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was denied procedural fairness by lack of legal representation at appeal or lack of language assistance
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was deprived of a fair opportunity by not receiving or responding to the Director's invitation to submit further facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions. The primary decision-makers lawfully assessed the evidence, concluded the risk was localized and low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and exercised discretion appropriately regarding representation, translation and oral hearing; judicial review is not a forum to retry these factual evaluations.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.