PADIKKASU KASINATHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PADIKKASU KASINATHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual assessments fell within its province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1554
Parties
Applicant: Padikkasu Kasinathan; 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
15 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1881/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Claim, Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Asylum Claim Torture/cidtp +5 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Padikkasu Kasinathan

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established real risk of death or CIDTP or persecution on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual assessments fell within its province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

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