MILAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MILAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness with sufficient particularity; the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably assessed risk including availability of state protection and internal relocation; judicial review is not a vehicle to re-assess primary factual evaluations of risk.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1415
Parties
Applicant: Milah; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1511/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Consideration/oral Submission Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life, HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Consideration/oral Submission Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness with sufficient particularity; the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably assessed risk including availability of state protection and internal relocation; judicial review is not a vehicle to re-assess primary factual evaluations of risk.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused