CAING DEVI JANE CABUGSA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

CAING DEVI JANE CABUGSA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by evidence of lapse of time and lack of corroboration, and the Board's conclusions on state protection and internal relocation did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1011
Parties
Applicant: Caing Devi Jane Cabugsa; 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
18 April 2024
Case Number
HCAL1282/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law Torture Prohibition Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caing Devi Jane Cabugsa

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and reasonably relied upon by the Board

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by evidence of lapse of time and lack of corroboration, and the Board's conclusions on state protection and internal relocation did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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