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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; credibility findings by the Board that the claim was fabricated or unreliable were matters of fact within the Board's remit and the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1221
Parties
Applicant: Sunil Kumar; 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
18 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1757/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat Article 3 Risk, Risk to Life (hkbor Article 2), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation/state Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat Article 3 Risk Risk to Life (hkbor Article 2) +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunil Kumar

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 (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted unfairly or irrationally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether state protection or internal relocation was available to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Board misapplied rules of evidence or applied incorrect standard of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; credibility findings by the Board that the claim was fabricated or unreliable were matters of fact within the Board's remit and the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused
  • The applicant's application is dismissed