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

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

Leave refused because the court was not satisfied there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: applicant failed to provide particulars of new evidence, had opportunity to present his case and was assisted by counsel at earlier stage and by an interpreter at the Board hearing, and the Board\'s factual assessment (low risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation) had no obvious legal flaw or unfairness, therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1377
Parties
Applicant: Rai Subas; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL880/2017
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 (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), HKBOR Article 3 (bor 3), HKBOR Article 2 (bor 2), Asylum/refugee Status, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) HKBOR Article 3 (bor 3) HKBOR Article 2 (bor 2) +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rai Subas

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 should be granted to challenge the Board\'s dismissal of non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether absence of free legal representation at appeal before the Board violated fairness
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide translation of NCF or interpreter errors rendered the process unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the court was not satisfied there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: applicant failed to provide particulars of new evidence, had opportunity to present his case and was assisted by counsel at earlier stage and by an interpreter at the Board hearing, and the Board\'s factual assessment (low risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation) had no obvious legal flaw or unfairness, therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave refused