RAJ KUMAR KUMHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

RAJ KUMAR KUMHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because, after rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and no failure to apply high standards of fairness by the Director or the Board; objective country information, credibility findings and availability of state protection/internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1372
Parties
Applicant: Raj Kumar Kumhal; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL545/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Kumar Kumhal

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted to challenge Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings and lack of past ill-treatment justify refusal of protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, after rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and no failure to apply high standards of fairness by the Director or the Board; objective country information, credibility findings and availability of state protection/internal relocation meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused (Notification dated 22 June 2018)