NEERAJ KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

NEERAJ KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally evaluated credibility, assessed the risk as low, and properly concluded state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2222
Parties
Applicant: Neeraj Kumar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL799/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Judicial Review Leave, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Judicial Review Leave Internal Relocation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neeraj Kumar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces real risk of harm engaging BOR 2/3 or Article 33 refugee non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation in India would be reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally evaluated credibility, assessed the risk as low, and properly concluded state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.