VACA MINGYAO v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

VACA MINGYAO v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced only broad, vague grounds without particulars or supporting evidence; the Director and the Board conducted careful, evidence-based assessments (the Board having heard the applicant) and identified low risk and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 412
Parties
Applicant: Vaca Mingyao; 1st Putative Respondent (adjudicator): The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent (director of Immigration): The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL481/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Prohibition of Torture (article 3 Hkbor), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vaca Mingyao

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent (adjudicator)

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent (director of Immigration)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing the applicant’s non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the handling of the claim and appeal (insufficient time/opportunity to present evidence)
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in India was a reasonable and available alternative negating non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced only broad, vague grounds without particulars or supporting evidence; the Director and the Board conducted careful, evidence-based assessments (the Board having heard the applicant) and identified low risk and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused