QUINTERO HASLE CALISE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

QUINTERO HASLE CALISE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: both the Director and the Board lawfully and fairly concluded there was no real risk of serious harm, state protection was available, and reasonable internal relocation alternatives existed, and no legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 945
Parties
Applicant: Quintero Hasle Calise; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL1076/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Internal Relocation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quintero Hasle Calise

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted unfairly in assessing risk of torture, BOR Article 2/3 risks and persecution under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: both the Director and the Board lawfully and fairly concluded there was no real risk of serious harm, state protection was available, and reasonable internal relocation alternatives existed, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (4 May 2018)