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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness, the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct legal principles and reached decisions open on the facts, and there was no reasonably arguable basis or realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 416
Parties
Applicant: Manjit Kaur; 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
2 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL643/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Papers; Decision Refusing Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Article 3 BOR / Article 7 ICCPR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 BOR / Article 6 ICCPR (right to Life), Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement / Persecution), Judicial Review (leave Stage), Procedural Fairness, Appeal to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Article 3 BOR / Article 7 ICCPR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjit Kaur

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 / Leave Application Considered on Papers; Decision Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant disclosed any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Adjudicator
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Adjudicator correctly applied the legal tests under the Immigration Ordinance, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the 1951 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether there existed a reasonably arguable basis and realistic prospect of success to justify grant of leave to apply for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness, the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct legal principles and reached decisions open on the facts, and there was no reasonably arguable basis or realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.