PUN BIYATRI v. RONALD CHEUNG, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

PUN BIYATRI v. RONALD CHEUNG, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused leave because the Adjudicator's findings were supported by evidence, he applied the law correctly, there was no procedural unfairness or misdirection, the appeal bundle was served in time, the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from any lack of legal representation or language difficulties, and the complaints were not reasonably arguable or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 368
Parties
Applicant: Pun Biyatri; Putative Respondent: Ronald Cheung, Esq.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL680/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave (notification)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pun Biyatri

Applicant

Ronald Cheung, Esq.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were irrational or unsupported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness arose from late service of the appeal bundle or inadequate legal representation
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Board properly screened BOR2, BOR3, torture and persecution risks

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Adjudicator's findings were supported by evidence, he applied the law correctly, there was no procedural unfairness or misdirection, the appeal bundle was served in time, the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from any lack of legal representation or language difficulties, and the complaints were not reasonably arguable or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.