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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Director and Board made reasoned findings that the risk was localized and low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, credibility issues undermined the claim, there was no demonstrable legal error or procedural unfairness (applicant had interpreter assistance and prior legal help), and the applicant had further affirmed withdrawal and no longer feared return, so no arguable grounds for judicial review existed.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3193
Parties
Applicant: Narayan Shrestha; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Case Number
HCAL2005/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Article 2 Right to Life (bor 2), Article 3 Prohibition of Torture (bor 3), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Article 2 Right to Life (bor 2) Article 3 Prohibition of Torture (bor 3) Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narayan Shrestha

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in rejecting non-refoulement/BOR 2 and BOR 3 claims
  2. 2 Whether lack of legal representation or language assistance at Board hearing amount to denial of fair process
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and state protection made return safe

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Director and Board made reasoned findings that the risk was localized and low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, credibility issues undermined the claim, there was no demonstrable legal error or procedural unfairness (applicant had interpreter assistance and prior legal help), and the applicant had further affirmed withdrawal and no longer feared return, so no arguable grounds for judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.