MAGAR SURENDRA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MAGAR SURENDRA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave for judicial review was refused because (1) no exceptional circumstances were shown that would permit judicial review of the Director's decision where the statutory Board provides the appeal mechanism, and (2) the applicant could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in attacking the Board's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 252
Parties
Applicant: Magar Surendra; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL1090/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP +4 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magar Surendra

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant may seek judicial review of the Director's decision absent exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility finding and rejection of the claim gave rise to reviewable error
  3. 3 Whether lack of translation, inadequate hearing bundle and lack of legal advice rendered the Board's process unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because (1) no exceptional circumstances were shown that would permit judicial review of the Director's decision where the statutory Board provides the appeal mechanism, and (2) the applicant could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in attacking the Board's decision given the adverse credibility finding and absence of substantiated procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for judicial review of the Director's Decision refused
  • Leave for judicial review of the Board's Decision refused; application dismissed