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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board applied the correct legal tests, its findings of fact were not challenged and were final, there were no substantial grounds for risk of persecution/torture/CIDTP or BOR2 violation, and applicants had a fair hearing.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2990
Parties
1st Applicant: Kumaroh; 2nd Applicant: Iqbal Zara Mudassar; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1646/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Refugee Protection, Torture/cidtp, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Refugee Protection Torture/cidtp Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kumaroh

1st Applicant

Iqbal Zara Mudassar

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director properly applied law to applicants' non-refoulement and torture claims
  3. 3 Whether applicants faced a real risk of persecution/torture/CIDTP or violation of right to life if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board applied the correct legal tests, its findings of fact were not challenged and were final, there were no substantial grounds for risk of persecution/torture/CIDTP or BOR2 violation, and applicants had a fair hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.