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

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

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the alleged procedural unfairness was unsubstantiated on the evidence, credibility testing by the Adjudicator was lawful, absence of the Director did not establish bias, and the applicant did not provide evidence to show the Board erred on the substantive non-refoulement risks or state protection/relocation findings.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 619
Parties
Applicant: Bulo; 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
14 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1584/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (order 53 Application)
Outcome
Application for leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights, State Protection, Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights State Protection +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bulo

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (order 53 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board/Adjudicator breached procedural fairness by failing to provide translation or interpreter and adequate time to prepare
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator improperly tested credibility by repeating Immigration Officer questions
  3. 3 Whether absence of the Director at the appeal amounted to procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the alleged procedural unfairness was unsubstantiated on the evidence, credibility testing by the Adjudicator was lawful, absence of the Director did not establish bias, and the applicant did not provide evidence to show the Board erred on the substantive non-refoulement risks or state protection/relocation findings.

Court Disposition

Application for leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed