CELESTIAL VALENTIN GUISINGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

CELESTIAL VALENTIN GUISINGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars showing any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board and Director made sustainable findings on credibility, private nature of the disputes, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate those factual assessments.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1165
Parties
Applicant: Celestial Valentin Guisinga; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL386/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celestial Valentin Guisinga

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director committed legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case
  3. 3 Whether findings on credibility and availability of state protection and internal relocation were unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars showing any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board and Director made sustainable findings on credibility, private nature of the disputes, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate those factual assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.