PALE VINCENT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PALE VINCENT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was dismissed because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real risk of proscribed harm: the threats were localized and low intensity, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2308
Parties
Applicant: Pale Vincent; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL97/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Religious Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review (leave)
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Religious Persecution Internal Relocation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pale Vincent

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there are substantial grounds to believe the applicant faces a real risk of harm or death from family members
  3. 3 Whether state or police protection is available and whether internal relocation within Cote d'Ivoire is reasonable and feasible

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real risk of proscribed harm: the threats were localized and low intensity, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified; therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review and the application lacked prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.