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

LAMA BIKASH 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's grounds were vague and unparticularised, the adjudicator had given adequate reasons and lawfully assessed the risk as low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated that would justify judicial intervention.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 79
Parties
Applicant: Lama Bikash; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL247/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Refugee Convention Article 33, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lama Bikash

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached the high standard of procedural fairness at the oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting torture/BOR/Convention claims
  3. 3 Whether past threats and extortion amounted to torture or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised, the adjudicator had given adequate reasons and lawfully assessed the risk as low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated that would justify judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.