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

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

Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable because the Board and Director gave lawful reasons supported by evidence and COI: interpreter assistance was provided, the applicant declined to testify, there is no absolute right to legal representation, the alleged incidents were isolated and did not establish a real risk of torture or persecution, and reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh was available; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2356
Parties
Applicant: Bashu Shing; 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
6 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL1087/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness (legal Representation and Interpretation), Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Torture Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk +6 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashu Shing

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by lack of legal representation at the Board hearing
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied adequate language/interpretation assistance
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Board erred in assessing risk under BOR 2 and BOR 3 and in failing to afford non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable because the Board and Director gave lawful reasons supported by evidence and COI: interpreter assistance was provided, the applicant declined to testify, there is no absolute right to legal representation, the alleged incidents were isolated and did not establish a real risk of torture or persecution, and reasonable internal relocation in Bangladesh was available; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.