LIMBU RAJ KUMAR v. ORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

LIMBU RAJ KUMAR v. ORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board had properly applied the law to the facts, their findings were supported by evidence and country information, there was no procedural unfairness nor requirement for further hearings on BOR2 risk given no new evidence, and the applicant's complaints were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1843
Parties
Applicant: Limbu Raj Kumar; 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 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL679/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Leave) Non Refoulement/torture Claim Screening / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Screening Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Screening Process +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Limbu Raj Kumar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Leave) Non Refoulement/torture Claim Screening / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's and Board's decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness required further hearings on BOR2 (right to life) risk
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board had properly applied the law to the facts, their findings were supported by evidence and country information, there was no procedural unfairness nor requirement for further hearings on BOR2 risk given no new evidence, and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.