DIGGS BENJAMIN W ALIAS BENJAMIN DIGGS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

DIGGS BENJAMIN W ALIAS BENJAMIN DIGGS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; he failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which rationally concluded there was no real risk on return and that internal relocation was reasonable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 580
Parties
Applicant: Diggs Benjamin W alias Benjamin Diggs; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL969/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR, Asylum/refugee Law (article 33 1951 Convention), Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation/intra State Flight Alternative, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR Asylum/refugee Law (article 33 1951 Convention) +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diggs Benjamin W alias Benjamin Diggs

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director committed procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the decisions were irrational or unreasonable in public law sense
  3. 3 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; he failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which rationally concluded there was no real risk on return and that internal relocation was reasonable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused