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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to it on the evidence, the applicant had opportunity to request an adjournment if more time was needed, and she had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 584
Parties
Applicant: Gurung Nanu; 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
7 March 2022
Case Number
HCAL239/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Nanu

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 / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by insufficient time to prepare and by language issues at the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were justified on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to it on the evidence, the applicant had opportunity to request an adjournment if more time was needed, and she had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed