SUBBA SOSAL v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SUBBA SOSAL v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The ex parte dismissal was set aside on satisfactory explanation for absence, but on the merits the applicant's grounds failed: BOR2 could be processed on papers, the applicant confirmed he understood the hearing materials and had a fair hearing, lack of representation did not render the process unfair, the Adjudicator lawfully relied on country information and internal relocation was available; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review had no reasonable prospect and was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 622
Parties
Applicant: Subba Sosal; Putative Respondent: Kevin Anthony Browne, the Adjudicator of the 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 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1051/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Refoulement +3 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subba Sosal

Applicant

Kevin Anthony Browne, the Adjudicator of the 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte order dismissing the application for want of prosecution should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board lawfully assessed BOR2, BOR3, torture and persecution risks
  3. 3 Whether the hearing was fair given timing and language of the hearing bundle and lack of legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte dismissal was set aside on satisfactory explanation for absence, but on the merits the applicant's grounds failed: BOR2 could be processed on papers, the applicant confirmed he understood the hearing materials and had a fair hearing, lack of representation did not render the process unfair, the Adjudicator lawfully relied on country information and internal relocation was available; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review had no reasonable prospect and was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Order dated 23 November 2018 dismissing the application for want of prosecution set aside
  • Application for leave for judicial review refused and application dismissed