VISHPAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS [Decision on Leave Application]

VISHPAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and no Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision; the Board gave adequate reasons and the applicant had no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 696
Parties
Applicant: Vishpal; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1433/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on Paper Under Order 53 R 3; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution) Credibility Assessment +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishpal

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on Paper Under Order 53 R 3; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the rejection of the applicant's credibility was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to consider extended state acquiescence or Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and no Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision; the Board gave adequate reasons and the applicant had no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed