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

KUMAR PRADIP 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 failed to demonstrate any arguable ground or reasonable prospect of success: the Board did not err in its findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and not credible, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, thereby negating the asserted risks of torture, CIDTP or persecution.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1762
Parties
Applicant: Kumar Pradip; 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
31 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1904/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Asylum/refugee Protection, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Asylum/refugee Protection Judicial Review +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kumar Pradip

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in findings of fact or law
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced real risk of torture, CIDTP, or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground or reasonable prospect of success: the Board did not err in its findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and not credible, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, thereby negating the asserted risks of torture, CIDTP or persecution.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed