BASUG AMY LAPADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BASUG AMY LAPADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal ground: the Board's findings that the risk of harm on refoulement was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by the evidence and were not tainted by error of law, procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3075
Parties
Applicant: Basug Amy Lapada; 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
5 October 2022
Case Number
HCAL1055/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture State Protection Internal Relocation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basug Amy Lapada

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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available and internal relocation viable such that risk on return was low

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal ground: the Board's findings that the risk of harm on refoulement was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by the evidence and were not tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, therefore there was 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 refused
  • Application for leave dismissed