MANISH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MANISH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board conducted proper assessments, their adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable were supported by evidence and reasoning, and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown such that the applicant had no reasonably arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2328
Parties
Applicant: Manish; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL845/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review – Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture and Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manish

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision and the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces BOR 2/BOR 3 or refugee Convention Article 33 risk on return to India
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in India is a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board conducted proper assessments, their adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable were supported by evidence and reasoning, and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown such that the applicant had no reasonably arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused