T v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

T v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Leave was refused because the adjudicator lawfully and reasonably applied the relevant legal tests; the applicant's evidence was speculative and insufficient to establish a real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or threat to life; COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation; refusal to admit new evidence complied with statutory procedure; no error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown and the application was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1004
Parties
Applicant: T; 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
23 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL166/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3), Right to Life (bor 2), Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor 3) Right to Life (bor 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forcible recruitment as a child and refusal to resume gang activity amounts to persecution or membership of a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance/Convention against Torture
  3. 3 Whether there is a BOR 3 (CIDTP) risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the adjudicator lawfully and reasonably applied the relevant legal tests; the applicant's evidence was speculative and insufficient to establish a real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or threat to life; COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation; refusal to admit new evidence complied with statutory procedure; no error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown and the application was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused