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

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

No reasonably arguable basis for judicial review was established; the Director and the Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence, made open and reasonable credibility findings and acted without procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused for lack of realistic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1873
Parties
Applicant: Harjeet Pal; 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
12 October 2018
Case Number
HCAL1123/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Decision on Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Unified Screening Mechanism, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture +4 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harjeet Pal

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 / Leave Application Considered on the Papers; Decision on Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Adjudicator acted unlawfully, unreasonably or unfairly in assessing the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established risks under torture law, Hong Kong Bill of Rights/ICCPR and the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonably arguable basis for judicial review was established; the Director and the Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence, made open and reasonable credibility findings and acted without procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused for lack of realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.