JUN KASI GHALE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

JUN KASI GHALE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or the Board’s decisions; the Board and Director properly considered evidence and relevant COI, found risk to be low, and reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3724
Parties
Applicant: Jun Kasi Ghale; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL67/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (bor 2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave for Judicial Review, Statutory Time Limits for Appeal
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (bor 2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jun Kasi Ghale

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration erred in rejecting non‑refoulement claims (torture, BOR 2 and BOR 3, persecution)
  3. 3 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in refusing late filing of notice of appeal and in dismissing the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or the Board’s decisions; the Board and Director properly considered evidence and relevant COI, found risk to be low, and reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.