BERONIO ALMA BANGAHON AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

BERONIO ALMA BANGAHON AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which reasonably found no real risk of harm and that state protection and internal relocation were available; judicial review cannot be used to re-evaluate factual risk assessments of primary decision-makers.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2374
Parties
1st Applicant: Beronio Alma Bangahon; 2nd Applicant: Roy Tenzin Tsering; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL749/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (refusal of Leave)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beronio Alma Bangahon

1st Applicant

Roy Tenzin Tsering

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (refusal of Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are substantial grounds to believe a real risk of harm or killing by a private actor amounting to torture or violation of non-derogable rights
  2. 2 Whether state or police protection in the country of return is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether reasonable internal relocation within the country of return is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which reasonably found no real risk of harm and that state protection and internal relocation were available; judicial review cannot be used to re-evaluate factual risk assessments of primary decision-makers.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused