VIKAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

VIKAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case: he had opportunity at the oral hearing to present any additional facts, provided no explanation or particulars for alleged non-receipt, presented no corroborating evidence, the Director and Board made permissible credibility findings and lawful assessments of COI and internal relocation, and no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 269
Parties
Applicant: VIKAS; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 February 2018
Case Number
HCAL185/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 BOR (right to Life), Article 3 BOR (torture/cruel Treatment), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 BOR (right to Life) Article 3 BOR (torture/cruel Treatment) +6 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIKAS

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was deprived of opportunity to submit additional facts when he did not receive the Department's letter
  2. 2 Whether the oral hearing provided adequate opportunity to advance additional facts on BOR 2 risk
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or bias by the Director or the Board in assessing COI and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case: he had opportunity at the oral hearing to present any additional facts, provided no explanation or particulars for alleged non-receipt, presented no corroborating evidence, the Director and Board made permissible credibility findings and lawful assessments of COI and internal relocation, and no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.