SALGADO LEONIDA TAMAYO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SALGADO LEONIDA TAMAYO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and reliable evidence and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2370
Parties
Applicant: Salgado Leonida Tamayo; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL133/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Right to Life/article 2 HKBOR +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salgado Leonida Tamayo

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision warranting leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in rejecting non-refoulement protection on credibility and risk assessment grounds
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in the Philippines is a viable alternative to removal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and reliable evidence and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably 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.