LIMBU SUNIL v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

LIMBU SUNIL v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's findings that there was no real risk of harm given absence of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 249
Parties
Applicant: Limbu Sunil; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL587/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Limbu Sunil

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces real risk of persecution, torture or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Nepal
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available to avoid risk
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board committed legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in assessing risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's findings that there was no real risk of harm given absence of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.