MILLAN IMMACULADA TRAISO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MILLAN IMMACULADA TRAISO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board validly disbelieved the applicant's factual assertions and the applicant could not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; her procedural complaints were contradicted by her own oral evidence and unsupported, so they did not meet the threshold for granting leave to judicially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1775
Parties
Applicant: Millan Immaculada Traiso; 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
16 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL1644/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Refugee Convention Protection, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave Stage
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Refugee Convention Protection Procedural Fairness +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millan Immaculada Traiso

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) / Application for Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success on a non-refoulement/torture/CIDTP claim
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness defects (late bundle, lack of interpreter, reliance on hearsay/COI) existed sufficient to vitiate the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Board properly exercised fact-finding and rejection of the applicant's credibility

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board validly disbelieved the applicant's factual assertions and the applicant could not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; her procedural complaints were contradicted by her own oral evidence and unsupported, so they did not meet the threshold for granting leave to judicially review the Board's decision.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed