YEASHMIN v.TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

YEASHMIN v.TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator provided adequate reasons, properly considered COI, reasonably found the Applicant's account not credible, correctly applied the law, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and internal relocation was viable, so the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 679
Parties
Applicant: Yeashmin; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL820/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Preliminary Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, BOR2 Risk (right to Life), BOR3 Risk (torture/cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeashmin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Preliminary Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to take sufficient or proper country-of-origin information (COI) into account
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator cherry-picked COI or relied on inaccurate COI
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider psychological harm and state protection/acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator provided adequate reasons, properly considered COI, reasonably found the Applicant's account not credible, correctly applied the law, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and internal relocation was viable, so the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused.