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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error in the Board's or Director's decisions; credibility findings and risk assessments by the primary decision-makers were open to them on the evidence, there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness from late disclosure of the hearing bundle, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2100
Parties
Applicant: Juwel; 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
21 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL27/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (article 3 Hkbor), Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Fettering Discretion
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (article 3 Hkbor) Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) Credibility Findings +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juwel

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 (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board/Director's risk assessment was unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error in the Board's or Director's decisions; credibility findings and risk assessments by the primary decision-makers were open to them on the evidence, there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness from late disclosure of the hearing bundle, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused