KULWINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KULWINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached, supported by reasons, free of procedural unfairness, and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and she had no realistic prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2050
Parties
Applicant: Kulwinder Kaur; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL119/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening Decision) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulwinder Kaur

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening Decision) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator's credibility findings and factual conclusions were Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness at the Board hearing sufficient to warrant judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached, supported by reasons, free of procedural unfairness, and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and she had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.