CUCUN FATIMAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

CUCUN FATIMAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to produce fresh or material evidence to engage BOR2 risk; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally assessed the evidence, internal relocation and state protection rendered the claim not sustainable, and the absence of an oral hearing or legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness in the circumstances.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 257
Parties
Applicant: Cucun Fatimah; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL411/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cucun Fatimah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real prospect of success on a BOR Article 2 (right to life) non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether Director and Board failed to consider material evidence or applied a formulistic approach
  3. 3 Whether denial of an oral hearing or legal representation for BOR2 screening breached procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to produce fresh or material evidence to engage BOR2 risk; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally assessed the evidence, internal relocation and state protection rendered the claim not sustainable, and the absence of an oral hearing or legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.