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

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

Leave refused because the Board made a reasoned, rational assessment accepting the applicant's account but reasonably concluding there was no real risk of proscribed harm if returned; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2297
Parties
Applicant: Harvinder Kaur; 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
14 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL220/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Asylum/non Refoulement Human Rights Non Refoulement Risk Assessment Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Leave +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvinder Kaur

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or was irrational in its risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness arose from lack of legal or language assistance
  3. 3 Whether BOR2/ BOR3/ torture and persecution risks were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board made a reasoned, rational assessment accepting the applicant's account but reasonably concluding there was no real risk of proscribed harm if returned; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.