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

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

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and Board provided adequate reasons, there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness, and adverse credibility findings and assessments of state protection/internal relocation are matters for the primary decision-makers not for judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2102
Parties
Applicant: Gole Surya; 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
28 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL7/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gole Surya

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether Board or Director committed legal error or procedural unfairness in rejecting non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether lack of legal representation or translation amounted to denial of fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and Board provided adequate reasons, there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness, and adverse credibility findings and assessments of state protection/internal relocation are matters for the primary decision-makers not for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.