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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error and had no factual basis for relief after the Board rejected his core factual assertions; there was no reasonable prospect of success and no judicial basis to disturb the Board's fact‑finding.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1213
Parties
Applicant: Jatta Landing; 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
17 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1566/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Right to Life (bor Article 2), Prohibition of CIDTP (bor Article 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Right to Life (bor Article 2) Prohibition of CIDTP (bor Article 3) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jatta Landing

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 applicant has an arguable ground for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law in its evaluation of credibility and facts
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation make return permissible

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error and had no factual basis for relief after the Board rejected his core factual assertions; there was no reasonable prospect of success and no judicial basis to disturb the Board's fact‑finding.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed