DUMAGSA MARCELO CALDERON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DUMAGSA MARCELO CALDERON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's assessment that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that procedural fairness was observed was reasonable and within the decision-makers' remit.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2453
Parties
Applicant: Dumagsa Marcelo Calderon; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1084/2018
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 Risk, Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Asylum and Refugeedom, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Asylum and Refugeedom Procedural Fairness +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dumagsa Marcelo Calderon

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

The 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 unlawfully fettered its discretion or acted with procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in risk assessment or relied on improper COI
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unreasonably disadvantaged by late provision of the hearing bundle

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's assessment that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that procedural fairness was observed was reasonable and within the decision-makers' remit.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused