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

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

Leave refused because the applicant advanced only narrow, unarguable procedural complaints, the TCAB reheard the appeal making the Director's Decision not reviewable, the Adjudicator correctly applied the law and found the applicant's evidence wholly unreliable, and there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2013
Parties
Applicant: Mani; 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
20 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL352/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave Considered on the Papers Under Order 53 R.3; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBORO, Article 2 HKBORO, Refugee Law (1951 Convention), Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBORO Article 2 HKBORO +4 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mani

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave Considered on the Papers Under Order 53 R.3; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director or the Adjudicator acted unlawfully, unreasonably or unfairly in assessing non-refoulement claims
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from alleged failure to notify about BOR2 or lack of assistance/representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant advanced only narrow, unarguable procedural complaints, the TCAB reheard the appeal making the Director's Decision not reviewable, the Adjudicator correctly applied the law and found the applicant's evidence wholly unreliable, and there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.