CARAMAT VIRGINIA LOBEBAN AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

CARAMAT VIRGINIA LOBEBAN AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The Court refused leave because the applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably concluded the matter was a personal family dispute not persecution, there was no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, no procedural unfairness arose from the absence of further hearing on BOR2 given applicants' failure to supply additional facts, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1891
Parties
1st Applicant: Caramat Virginia Lobeban; 2nd Applicant (minor): Iqbal Syeda Rabika Qaisar; 3rd Applicant (minor): Iqbal Mohammad Usama Qaisar; 4th Applicant (minor): Iqbal Syed Umar Qaisar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL745/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Right to Life (bor2), Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor3), Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caramat Virginia Lobeban

1st Applicant

Iqbal Syeda Rabika Qaisar

2nd Applicant (minor)

Iqbal Mohammad Usama Qaisar

3rd Applicant (minor)

Iqbal Syed Umar Qaisar

4th Applicant (minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and Adjudicator erred in law or acted irrationally in refusing non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether failure to hold a hearing or further interview on BOR2 life risk rendered the process unfair
  3. 3 Whether there was state acquiescence or extended state responsibility warranting protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave because the applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably concluded the matter was a personal family dispute not persecution, there was no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, no procedural unfairness arose from the absence of further hearing on BOR2 given applicants' failure to supply additional facts, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused