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

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

The adjudicator's decision was legally sound and factually supported: applicant lacked credibility due to material discrepancies, failed to prove injuries met the statutory threshold for torture, failed to demonstrate a substantial real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of BOR/ICCPR rights, and the availability of State protection and internal relocation undermined non-refoulement claims; grounds lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1342
Parties
Applicant: Kasirah; 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
25 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL599/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Asylum/refugee Status, Judicial Review (leave Stage), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility and Fact Finding
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Asylum/refugee Status +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasirah

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 Stage Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faced real risk of torture as defined by section 37U(1) Immigration Ordinance and Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced CIDTP contrary to BOR Article 3 and ICCPR Article 7
  3. 3 Whether applicant faced persecution under the Refugee Convention (Articles 33 and 1A(2))

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision was legally sound and factually supported: applicant lacked credibility due to material discrepancies, failed to prove injuries met the statutory threshold for torture, failed to demonstrate a substantial real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of BOR/ICCPR rights, and the availability of State protection and internal relocation undermined non-refoulement claims; grounds lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • Notification of the decision sent to the parties on 25 June 2018.