SUBHASH KUMAR v. MS WONG HING-CHUN, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SUBHASH KUMAR v. MS WONG HING-CHUN, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unsupported by particulars or evidence, the Director and Board's findings that the risk was low and that state protection/internal relocation were available were rational and there was no procedural unfairness shown; accordingly there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1609
Parties
Applicant: Subhash Kumar; Putative Respondent: Ms Wong Hing-chun, Esq., 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
17 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL1079/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture (article 3 Hkbor), Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice, Judicial Review Leave Test, State Protection and Internal Relocation, Standard of Proof, Torture Claims Appeal Board Appeal
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture (article 3 Hkbor) Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subhash Kumar

Applicant

Ms Wong Hing-chun, Esq., 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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or procedurally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to take into account relevant and up-to-date country of origin information or improperly cherry-picked COI
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness from late provision of hearing bundle and inadequate time to prepare or insufficient legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unsupported by particulars or evidence, the Director and Board's findings that the risk was low and that state protection/internal relocation were available were rational and there was no procedural unfairness shown; accordingly there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused