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

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

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to present any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and provided no adequate evidence to show a substantial risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of non-derogable rights on return; the administrative findings as to low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not irrational.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1522
Parties
Applicant: Nesim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL957/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Standard, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp HKBOR Article 3 +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nesim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or CIDTP on return
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a risk of persecution engaging non-refoulement under Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to present any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and provided no adequate evidence to show a substantial risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of non-derogable rights on return; the administrative findings as to low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not irrational.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.