GANBOLD MUNKH ERDENE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

GANBOLD MUNKH ERDENE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by its reasons and evidence, the risk was assessed as low with reasonable internal relocation options, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear the merits.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 180
Parties
Applicant: Ganbold Munkh Erdene; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1333/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Asylum Torture Risk Credibility Assessment +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ganbold Munkh Erdene

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board applied a high standard of fairness in assessing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real risk of torture, violation of Articles 2 or 3 HKBOR, or persecution on return to Mongolia
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Mongolia was a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by its reasons and evidence, the risk was assessed as low with reasonable internal relocation options, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear the merits.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.