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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, applied the correct legal principles and reached conclusions open on the facts; the Director's Decision is not susceptible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 327
Parties
Applicant: Sherpa Mingmar; 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
12 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL863/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided on the Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life), Article 3 HKBORO, 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Bias
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law International Law Non Refoulement Torture +7 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sherpa Mingmar

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 / Leave Application Decided on the Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator was biased or prejudiced
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or denial of opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, applied the correct legal principles and reached conclusions open on the facts; the Director's Decision is not susceptible to judicial review after a pursued and determined appeal to the TCAB.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused