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

JOGINDER 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 raised no arguable legal or procedural ground: the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence, were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 852
Parties
Applicant: Joginder 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
28 March 2022
Case Number
HCAL192/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused (consideration on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Risk Assessment, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Refugee/asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joginder 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 Refused (consideration on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real and foreseeable risk of torture, death or persecution by a private actor
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant raised no arguable legal or procedural ground: the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence, were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave dismissed