DOUCOURE ADAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

DOUCOURE ADAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, identified extensive inconsistencies, applied the correct legal tests and afforded procedural fairness; there was no reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 831
Parties
Applicant: Doucoure Adama; 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
15 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL526/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Considered on the Papers (leave Application Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBORO, Article 2 HKBORO, Refugee Status, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBORO Article 2 HKBORO +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doucoure Adama

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Considered on the Papers (leave Application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider the local situation and relevant evidence
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness or breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established real and personal risk of torture, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life under relevant instruments

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence, identified extensive inconsistencies, applied the correct legal tests and afforded procedural fairness; there was no reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused