RAI AMBER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RAI AMBER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully and rationally found the risk localized and internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1044
Parties
Applicant: Rai Amber; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1104/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rai Amber

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to challenge the Director and Board decisions on the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director or the Board committed an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India was reasonably available to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully and rationally found the risk localized and internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.