WAKLIN GRACIAM DOPING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

WAKLIN GRACIAM DOPING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's factual findings were supported and not Wednesbury unreasonable and there was no realistic prospect of success on the intended judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 731
Parties
Applicant: Waklin Graciam Doping; 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
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1306/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Paper Under Order 53 R.3; Leave Refused at Leave Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waklin Graciam Doping

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 Considered on Paper Under Order 53 R.3; Leave Refused at Leave Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness or was irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution on return because of his sexuality
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's factual findings were supported and not Wednesbury unreasonable and there was no realistic prospect of success on the intended judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.