DJIU SUN FO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

DJIU SUN FO 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 error, confirmed he was treated fairly, had no substantive response to the Board's adverse findings, and thus had no reasonable prospect of success; evaluation of evidence remained for the Director/Board and not for the court.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1220
Parties
Applicant: Djiu Sun Fo; 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
18 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1856/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 and Article 3, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Evaluation of Evidence, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) +5 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Djiu Sun Fo

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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board made reviewable errors in its decision
  2. 2 Whether applicant has arguable grounds/ reasonable prospects of success for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the court should re-evaluate factual findings made by the Director/Board

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, confirmed he was treated fairly, had no substantive response to the Board's adverse findings, and thus had no reasonable prospect of success; evaluation of evidence remained for the Director/Board and not for the court.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed