MSI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

MSI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

The application for leave for judicial review was refused because the Director and Adjudicator did not commit errors of law or breach procedural fairness, the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were properly based on oral evidence and the totality of the record, COI was considered and balanced, and the claimed risks were found to be private/local and mitigable by state protection or internal relocation so no reasonably arguable ground for relief existed.

Citation
MSI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: MSI; 1st Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; 2nd Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2017
Case Number
HCAL184/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
leave for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 BOR, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Extension of Time, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 BOR +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MSI

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

1st Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Director and Adjudicator erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 whether procedural fairness was breached
  3. 3 whether the enhanced Wednesbury standard was satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave for judicial review was refused because the Director and Adjudicator did not commit errors of law or breach procedural fairness, the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were properly based on oral evidence and the totality of the record, COI was considered and balanced, and the claimed risks were found to be private/local and mitigable by state protection or internal relocation so no reasonably arguable ground for relief existed.

Court Disposition

leave for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for an extension of time to apply for leave to judicial review the Director's Decision granted
  • Application for leave for judicial review dismissed