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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk assessments, and findings as to state protection and internal relocation, disclosed no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2418
Parties
Applicant: Sanjeev; 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
17 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL652/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Refugee Protection, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Refugee Protection Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjeev

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing or decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk assessments, and findings as to state protection and internal relocation, disclosed no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed