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

JATINDER PAL 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 advance any reasonably arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully conducted a rehearing, gave the applicant opportunity to be heard, made credibility findings open to him and there was no error of law or procedure disclosed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2152
Parties
Applicant: Jatinder 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
4 December 2018
Case Number
HCAL929/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), ICCPR (articles 6 and 7), Persecution/refugee Risk, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) ICCPR (articles 6 and 7) +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jatinder Pal

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 (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonably arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision remained susceptible to judicial review after an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board treated as a rehearing
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings of the Adjudicator were open to challenge on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully conducted a rehearing, gave the applicant opportunity to be heard, made credibility findings open to him and there was no error of law or procedure disclosed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.