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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; their adverse credibility and low‑risk findings were supportable on the evidence, the risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 304
Parties
Applicant: Gurung Kapil; 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
1 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL561/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/ill Treatment), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Procedural Impropriety (coi Handling), Country of Origin Information, Judicial Review Standard of Review/leave Stage
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/ill Treatment) +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Kapil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in finding the applicant faced a low risk of ill-treatment or torture if returned to India
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator procedurally improprietily handled or selectively relied upon Country of Origin Information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether extended state acquiescence should have been considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; their adverse credibility and low‑risk findings were supportable on the evidence, the risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, and the applicant's grounds were vague and unsupported by particulars or reliable evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.