MARMA AONGMAPRU v. YU CHEUK-MAN, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

MARMA AONGMAPRU v. YU CHEUK-MAN, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The adjudicator correctly applied the legal tests: the applicant's evidence did not meet the statutory and treaty thresholds for torture, CIDTP or persecution; injuries lacked required severity for BOR3; available state protection meant BOR2 risk not established; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law; the application was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 50
Parties
Applicant: Marma Aongmapru; Putative Respondent: YU Cheuk-man, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
HCAL369/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Status/persecution, Right to Life (bor 2), Right Against Torture (bor 3), Judicial Review Leave Threshold, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Status/persecution Right to Life (bor 2) +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marma Aongmapru

Applicant

YU Cheuk-man, ESQ.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faced a real risk of torture under Immigration Ordinance s.37U(1) / Convention Against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced CIDTP contrary to BOR s.3 / ICCPR Art.7
  3. 3 Whether applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator correctly applied the legal tests: the applicant's evidence did not meet the statutory and treaty thresholds for torture, CIDTP or persecution; injuries lacked required severity for BOR3; available state protection meant BOR2 risk not established; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law; the application was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (notification dated 26 January 2018).