SAMUEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SAMUEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached factual conclusions that were open on the evidence, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 672
Parties
Applicant: Samuel; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 March 2022
Case Number
HCAL560/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), 1951 Refugee Convention, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) +2 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant disclosed any arguable ground of unlawfulness, irrationality or procedural unfairness to justify leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB rehearing and the Adjudicator's findings were vitiated by error of law or unfair procedure
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the evidential burden to establish non-refoulement risks (torture, persecution, BOR2/3)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached factual conclusions that were open on the evidence, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.