PURJA BINOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

PURJA BINOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because (1) the Director's decision was not susceptible to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; and (2) the Board reasonably found no real, personal and present risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution, identified availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant demonstrated no reasonable prospect of success on procedural fairness or COI-weighting grounds.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2813
Parties
Applicant: Purja Binod; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL1929/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/refugee) / Leave Application (consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Prohibition, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness Language Assistance, Weight of Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition State Protection +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Purja Binod

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/refugee) / Leave Application (consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review after an appeal to the Board
  3. 3 Whether the Board correctly assessed real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because (1) the Director's decision was not susceptible to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; and (2) the Board reasonably found no real, personal and present risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution, identified availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant demonstrated no reasonable prospect of success on procedural fairness or COI-weighting grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Order dated 13 March 2019 (dismissal for want of prosecution) set aside under Order 32 r.6 RHC and matter heard on merits
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed