PASCAL BEATRICE SIMON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PASCAL BEATRICE SIMON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the TCAB adjudicator conducted a lawful rehearing, accepted the applicant's evidence, correctly applied legal standards, reasonably concluded the facts did not meet the severity or state‑involvement thresholds for torture/CIDTP or persecution, internal relocation was possible, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law and the application had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 107
Parties
Applicant: Pascal Beatrice Simon; 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
26 January 2018
Case Number
HCAL358/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, CIDTP, Refugee Persecution, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk CIDTP Refugee 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pascal Beatrice Simon

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces real risk of torture or CIDTP if returned to Tanzania
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces persecution for a Convention reason under the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces violation of right to life under BOR/ICCPR

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the TCAB adjudicator conducted a lawful rehearing, accepted the applicant's evidence, correctly applied legal standards, reasonably concluded the facts did not meet the severity or state‑involvement thresholds for torture/CIDTP or persecution, internal relocation was possible, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law and the application had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refuse leave for judicial review