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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural error by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator's factual findings were open to him, the applicant produced no evidentiary support on key issues and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1010
Parties
Applicant: Colley Ebrima A.; 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
7 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL573/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application Considered on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life), Article 3 HKBORO (prohibition of Torture), Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life) +4 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colley Ebrima A.

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 / Decision on Leave Application Considered on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural error by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator's factual findings were open to him, the applicant produced no evidentiary support on key issues and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused