PHULMATI LAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

PHULMATI LAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Director and the Board's evaluations of risk, COI and availability of state protection/internal relocation involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify judicial intervention, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate primary fact findings of the primary decision makers.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1030
Parties
Applicant: Phulmati Lama; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1349/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Risk of Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Test, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phulmati Lama

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable error of law in the Director's or Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or persecution by Maoists on return to Nepal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Director and the Board's evaluations of risk, COI and availability of state protection/internal relocation involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify judicial intervention, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate primary fact findings of the primary decision makers.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.