SECOLLES DANIEL DE VERA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SECOLLES DANIEL DE VERA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable legal grounds with realistic prospects of success; the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings that the claim was fabricated were within its exclusive province and involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard in non-refoulement cases.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3676
Parties
Applicant: Secolles Daniel De Vera; 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
27 December 2024
Case Number
HCAL96/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum and Refugee Law Administrative Review Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secolles Daniel De Vera

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in affirming the Director's refusal of non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's claim met the threshold of a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects for leave
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings by the Board were irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable legal grounds with realistic prospects of success; the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings that the claim was fabricated were within its exclusive province and involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard in non-refoulement cases.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.