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

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

The Board made lawful, fair and factually supported credibility findings and conclusions on protection and internal relocation; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and therefore the Decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard; leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the proposed challenge has no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1216
Parties
Applicant: DAS SUJON CHANDRA; 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
28 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL442/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave Application, Standard of Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Asylum Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Credibility Findings Judicial Review Leave Application +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DAS SUJON CHANDRA

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was susceptible to judicial review or superseded the Director's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in assessing the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the Board's credibility findings and factual conclusions were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Board made lawful, fair and factually supported credibility findings and conclusions on protection and internal relocation; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and therefore the Decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard; leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the proposed challenge has no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.