FERNANDEZ LONILYN MABASA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

FERNANDEZ LONILYN MABASA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by evidence, delay and contradictions and the Director’s findings that state protection and internal relocation made the risk low were rational and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2003
Parties
Applicant: Fernandez Lonilyn Mabasa; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL540/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Interpreter Assistance, Internal Relocation, Delay in Lodging Claim, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment +5 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fernandez Lonilyn Mabasa

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was denied fair process by lack of interpreter
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing credibility
  3. 3 Whether the Board/Director failed to take proper account of country conditions and political persecution risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by evidence, delay and contradictions and the Director’s findings that state protection and internal relocation made the risk low were rational and lawful.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.