TUGIYAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

TUGIYAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the applicant did not face a real and personal risk to life (BOR2) nor a substantial risk of torture/CIDTP or persecution (BOR3); reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available; the decisions were reached after sufficient COI consideration and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and must be refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1141
Parties
Applicant: Tugiyah; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL1118/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Notification of Decision — Leave Refused (order 53)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture / CAT Risk, Persecution, Right to Life (bor2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (bor3), State Acquiescence, Internal Relocation, Standard of Judicial Review (wednesbury; Anxious Scrutiny)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture / CAT Risk Persecution Right to Life (bor2) +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tugiyah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Notification of Decision — Leave Refused (order 53)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faced a real and personal BOR2 (life) risk on return
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced a BOR3/torture or persecution risk
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence or extended state acquiescence existed

Ratio Decidendi

The Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the applicant did not face a real and personal risk to life (BOR2) nor a substantial risk of torture/CIDTP or persecution (BOR3); reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available; the decisions were reached after sufficient COI consideration and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and must be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused