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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by detailed reasons following oral evidence and the asserted state involvement and impossibility of internal relocation were unsubstantiated, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1345
Parties
Applicant: Vijender Kumar; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL839/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijender Kumar

Applicant

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

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture and BOR Article 2/3 claims
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or official involvement was established or overlooked
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India was reasonably available and properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by detailed reasons following oral evidence and the asserted state involvement and impossibility of internal relocation were unsubstantiated, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.