TI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

TI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Because the Adjudicator made permissible findings of fact including adverse credibility after considering relevant factors, and there was no reasonably arguable legal challenge to those findings or the refusal of protection, the court refused the extension of time and leave to judicially review.

Citation
TI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: TI; 1st Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; 2nd Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Case Number
HCAL35/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Judicially Review (refused)
Outcome
Application for extension of time and for leave to judicially review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions, Torture and Ill Treatment, Persecution
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Credibility Findings Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TI

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

1st Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Judicially Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator and Director erred in law in refusing the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were open to challenge

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Adjudicator made permissible findings of fact including adverse credibility after considering relevant factors, and there was no reasonably arguable legal challenge to those findings or the refusal of protection, the court refused the extension of time and leave to judicially review.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and for leave to judicially review refused.

Orders

  • Application for an extension of time to judicially review the Director's decision refused.
  • Leave to judicially review the Adjudicator's decision refused.