BEPARY SHAHEALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BEPARY SHAHEALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were justified on the evidence, she applied the correct legal tests to COI, state protection and torture/CIDTP/BOR claims, found no real risk and no material error of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore the applicant's claim had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1245
Parties
Applicant: Bepary Shahealom; 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
11 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL562/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution/asylum, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution/asylum Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +4 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bepary Shahealom

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator erred in law or in fact in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/persecution/BOR claims
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider or research relevant and up-to-date country of origin information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were justified on the evidence, she applied the correct legal tests to COI, state protection and torture/CIDTP/BOR claims, found no real risk and no material error of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore the applicant's claim had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.