VISHWAKARMA RAMESH KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

VISHWAKARMA RAMESH KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because applicant failed to show any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and TCAB adjudicator's decisions; adjudicator reasonably assessed evidence and COI, found credibility deficiencies, and correctly concluded there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution and that state protection and internal relocation were viable; the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable and the application has no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1153
Parties
Applicant: Vishwakarma Ramesh Kumar; 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
7 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL523/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Article 3 Bora/iccpr, Refugee Convention Protections, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Findings, State Protection and Internal Relocation, Interpreter Accuracy, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Article 3 Bora/iccpr Refugee Convention Protections +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishwakarma Ramesh Kumar

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 / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces a real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance/Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces CIDTP under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for Refugee Convention purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicant failed to show any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and TCAB adjudicator's decisions; adjudicator reasonably assessed evidence and COI, found credibility deficiencies, and correctly concluded there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution and that state protection and internal relocation were viable; the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable and the application has no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.