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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's credibility and risk assessments were within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational, so there was no basis for judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1637
Parties
Applicant: Hafsa; 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
31 May 2022
Case Number
HCAL868/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Persecution Under Refugee Convention, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave Test
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Persecution Under Refugee Convention State Protection +3 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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hafsa

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing credibility and risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's credibility and risk assessments were within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational, so there was no basis for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed