ESPIRITU CHRISTOPHER CABER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ESPIRITU CHRISTOPHER CABER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because (1) the Director's decisions were not susceptible to judicial review once the claimant pursued an appeal to the Board (following Re: Moshsin Ali), and (2) the Board's decision was legally and factually defensible: the Adjudicator properly required evidence, made findings that the claimant's allegations were unsupported and that there was no real risk of harm, and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2250
Parties
Applicant: Espiritu Christopher Caber; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1219/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk of Harm, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Acquiescence, Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk of Harm Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Espiritu Christopher Caber

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution amounting to non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator erred procedurally in requiring evidence or in failing to allow time to obtain evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because (1) the Director's decisions were not susceptible to judicial review once the claimant pursued an appeal to the Board (following Re: Moshsin Ali), and (2) the Board's decision was legally and factually defensible: the Adjudicator properly required evidence, made findings that the claimant's allegations were unsupported and that there was no real risk of harm, and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed