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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated, with state protection and internal relocation available, involved no legal error and were within the Board's evaluative remit.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1207
Parties
Applicant: Lovely; 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
17 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1848/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Risk to Right to Life (bor 2), CIDTP (bor 3), Credibility Findings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Risk to Right to Life (bor 2) +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lovely

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed any legal error in its decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated, with state protection and internal relocation available, involved no legal error and were within the Board's evaluative remit.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.