SANNEH EBRIMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SANNEH EBRIMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings and risk assessment were supported by reliable COI and proper reasoning, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the claim.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1236
Parties
Applicant: Sanneh Ebrima; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL402/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), Refugee Convention Article 33, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanneh Ebrima

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to judicially review the Board's decision on non-refoulement and related human rights grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Director or the Board made errors of law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in assessing risk
  3. 3 Whether changed country conditions and availability of state protection/internal relocation negate real risk of proscribed harm

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings and risk assessment were supported by reliable COI and proper reasoning, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the claim.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused