SERPUJA THAM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SERPUJA THAM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, which reasonably found the risk to be localized, state protection and internal relocation available, and thus there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 259
Parties
Applicant: Serpuja Tham; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL480/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serpuja Tham

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing risk of harm on return to Nepal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, extra-judicial killing or other non-derogable harm
  3. 3 Whether state/police protection and internal relocation were available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, which reasonably found the risk to be localized, state protection and internal relocation available, and thus 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