POONAM GURUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

POONAM GURUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused leave because the Board had considered all relevant grounds, made reasoned findings that the risk was low, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; therefore no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review existed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3193
Parties
Applicant: Poonam Gurung; 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
4 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL294/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Persecution, Bill of Rights
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture State Protection +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poonam Gurung

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or was procedurally unfair in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture or ill-treatment if returned to India
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's fear arose from a matter linked to protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Board had considered all relevant grounds, made reasoned findings that the risk was low, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; therefore no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.