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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicants' grounds are not reasonably arguable: the Board's adverse credibility findings about the appellant were coherent, supported by the evidence and COI, there was no unfairness or error of law in the Director's or Board's decisions, and reasonable internal relocation in India was available so no non-refoulement protection was warranted.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1977
Parties
Applicant: Vijay Kumar; Applicant: Lovepreet Kaur; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL1032/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Article 3 BOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 2 BOR (right to Life), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Article 3 BOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Article 2 BOR (right to Life) +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Kumar

Applicant

Lovepreet Kaur

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants were entitled to legal representation at appeal before the Board
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide translation of NCF rendered hearing unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director wrongly relied on Country of Origin Information regarding police protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicants' grounds are not reasonably arguable: the Board's adverse credibility findings about the appellant were coherent, supported by the evidence and COI, there was no unfairness or error of law in the Director's or Board's decisions, and reasonable internal relocation in India was available so no non-refoulement protection was warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused