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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants only challenged factual findings of the Board which were made on credibility and COI; the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decisions, that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and that the proposed judicial reviews had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2504
Parties
1st Applicant: Ubongen Leanne Palma; 2nd Applicant (hcal 300/2019): Ubongen Chima Obinna; 2nd Applicant (hcal 818/2022): Ubongen Chioma Esther; 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
29 September 2023
Case Number
HCAL818/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Status, Unified Screening Mechanism, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Family Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Status +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubongen Leanne Palma

1st Applicant

Ubongen Chima Obinna

2nd Applicant (hcal 300/2019)

Ubongen Chioma Esther

2nd Applicant (hcal 818/2022)

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether state protection in the Philippines was unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within the Philippines was viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants only challenged factual findings of the Board which were made on credibility and COI; the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decisions, that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and that the proposed judicial reviews had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.