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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board accepted the applicant's evidence but found the risk remote/speculative and that state protection or internal relocation were available; evaluation of evidence was for the Board and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 118
Parties
Applicant: Sharma Dharampal; 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
9 January 2020
Case Number
HCAL1776/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Evaluation of Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharma Dharampal

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 / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospect of success in judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board/Director erred in evaluating evidence and in assessing risk of torture, killing or persecution by a private creditor
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board accepted the applicant's evidence but found the risk remote/speculative and that state protection or internal relocation were available; evaluation of evidence was for the Board and not for the court to re-open.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.