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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings and application of law were not shown to be erroneous, and credibility and risk assessments fall within the Board's primary province as established in Re: Kartini, so judicial intervention was not justified.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1745
Parties
Applicant: Subhash Chander; 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
30 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1694/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Decision on Leave Application (paper Hearing); Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (part VIIC, Cap.115), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Bor), Risk to Life (article 2 Bor), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture (part Viic, Cap.115) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Bor) Risk to Life (article 2 Bor) +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subhash Chander

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Decision on Leave Application (paper Hearing); Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in its Further Decision on BOR2 risk
  2. 2 Whether applicant has a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings and application of law were not shown to be erroneous, and credibility and risk assessments fall within the Board's primary province as established in Re: Kartini, so judicial intervention was not justified.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.