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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Board's decision or to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's factual evaluation and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection/internal relocation were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1553
Parties
Applicant: Sharda Ajay; 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
15 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1882/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Considered on Papers and Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Judicial Review Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Sharda Ajay

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 Considered on Papers and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success to justify grant of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in evaluating the evidence or failed to provide a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation is available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Board's decision or to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's factual evaluation and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection/internal relocation were available was within its primary role and not for the court to reassess on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed