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

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

Leave was refused because the Board conducted a proper assessment of evidence and credibility, gave reasons for rejecting the applicant's factual account as inconsistent and implausible, correctly assessed low risk and availability of state protection/internal relocation, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality nor any reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 822
Parties
Applicant: Masanthiah Teerapong; 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
31 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1386/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Convention/cidtp, Refoulement, Asylum/persecution, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Convention/cidtp Refoulement Asylum/persecution +6 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masanthiah Teerapong

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced real risk of torture, CIDTP, or persecution on return to Thailand
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board conducted a proper assessment of evidence and credibility, gave reasons for rejecting the applicant's factual account as inconsistent and implausible, correctly assessed low risk and availability of state protection/internal relocation, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality nor any reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.