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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's rational credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, which were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1844
Parties
Applicant: Mendes Nelson; 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
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL1562/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mendes Nelson

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's rejection of the non-refoulement/torture claim was Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in assessing the applicant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from questions not put directly to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's rational credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, which were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed