PATEL SAMIR GULAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PATEL SAMIR GULAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact by the Board and could not show a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's evaluation of evidence and conclusion were not challengeable on the material presented, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1284
Parties
Applicant: Patel Samir Gulab; 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
24 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1864/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Torture, Non Refoulement, Article 2 Right to Life, Article 3 CIDTP, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Evaluation of Evidence, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Torture Non Refoulement Article 2 Right to Life Article 3 CIDTP +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patel Samir Gulab

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 / Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or fact in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a fair hearing before the Board
  3. 3 Whether risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of the right to life was established

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact by the Board and could not show a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's evaluation of evidence and conclusion were not challengeable on the material presented, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
  • Accordingly, the application is dismissed.