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

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

No arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated: applicant had legal representation before the Director and Board and interpreter at appeal hearings; COI and state protection/internal relocation were considered and found to reduce risk to a level that does not attract non‑refoulement protection; therefore no real prospect of success on judicial review and leave is refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2286
Parties
Applicant: Rai Suresh; 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
25 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1033/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/bor/persecution) / Leave Stage Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture/ill‑treatment), Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee/non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rai Suresh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture/bor/persecution) / Leave Stage Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/BOR/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether absence of legal representation at leave stage or alleged lack of language assistance rendered proceedings unfair
  3. 3 Whether Country of Origin Information was improperly assessed and state protection and internal relocation wrongly discounted

Ratio Decidendi

No arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated: applicant had legal representation before the Director and Board and interpreter at appeal hearings; COI and state protection/internal relocation were considered and found to reduce risk to a level that does not attract non‑refoulement protection; therefore no real prospect of success on judicial review and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused