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

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

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that risk was speculative, attenuated by lapse of time and mitigated by available state protection and internal relocation were rational and unimpeached by any legal error or procedural unfairness; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 650
Parties
Applicant: Pinto; 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
12 March 2024
Case Number
HCAL1458/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage — Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture/cidtp, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), HKBOR Article 3 (cidtp), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture/cidtp Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinto

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 Stage — Application for Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established substantial grounds for real risk of torture, death or CIDTP if returned to Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available to mitigate risk
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Bangladesh was viable

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that risk was speculative, attenuated by lapse of time and mitigated by available state protection and internal relocation were rational and unimpeached by any legal error or procedural unfairness; accordingly 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 refused
  • Application dismissed