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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 852
Parties
Applicant: Otingguey Aimee Burdeos; 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
3 April 2024
Case Number
HCAL1364/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP Persecution +3 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otingguey Aimee Burdeos

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe the applicant faced risk of torture or CIDTP if returned
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk to life (Article 2 HKBOR)
  3. 3 Whether the non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 Refugee Convention applied by reason of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed