M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

The Adjudicator lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and weight of evidence (including hearsay and the Diagnosis Ticket) in a fresh hearing context, concluded the Applicant did not discharge the burden to show a real risk of ill‑treatment on return, and the procedural complaints were not reasonably arguable; accordingly leave and extension of time were refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1461
Parties
Applicant: M; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL179/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law; Non‑refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Hearsay Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Delay and Extension of Time, Standard of Proof, Torture/non‑refoulement
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Asylum and Non‑refoulement Law Judicial Review Credibility Assessment Hearsay Evidence Procedural Fairness +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law; Non‑refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator was bound by an alleged concession by the Director that the rape occurred
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator was procedurally unfair for not putting the inconsistency to the Applicant
  3. 3 Whether it was irrational to discount contemporaneous medical evidence (Diagnosis Ticket)

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and weight of evidence (including hearsay and the Diagnosis Ticket) in a fresh hearing context, concluded the Applicant did not discharge the burden to show a real risk of ill‑treatment on return, and the procedural complaints were not reasonably arguable; accordingly leave and extension of time were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • Application for extension of time refused