Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture claim screening

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2021

RE MOHAMMAD SHAHID

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1899/2018

Applicant's leave application and subsequent appeal were refused because he failed to establish good reason for substantial delay (about four months for leave, five weeks for appeal), failed to return the SCF and to pursue or substantiate his claim, and the intended judicial review lacked merit; on that basis extension of time and leave were denied and the adjudicator's decision was upheld.
22 Jul 2021

RE BERMUDEZ EDNA LABADCHAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1046
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV351/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the Form 86 sought to challenge a nonexistent November 2018 decision and was therefore misconceived; the Director's February 2019 decision was subject to a statutory appeal to the TCAB so judicial review was inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances, and any procedural error in hearing the application on paper caused no real prejudice to the applicant.
31 Aug 2015

SUROP VIOLETA LOPEZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

SUROP VIOLETA LOPEZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL102/2013

The application fails because the applicant's complaint was essentially a domestic dispute without evidence of state involvement or acquiescence, and the injuries and threats did not establish the severe pain and suffering or real risk of torture required by section 37U(1); there was no breach of procedural fairness in deciding the appeal on paper, so no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review existed.
26 Jun 2014

ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2013

The Court held that where an adjudicator intended to rely on significant external country guidance and risk factors not squarely addressed in the petitioner’s materials, fairness required that the claimant be informed and given an opportunity to respond (ordinarily by oral hearing or further submissions); failure to do so was a material procedural irregularity that vitiated the petition decision, requiring quashing and rehearing by a different adjudicator.
9 May 2014

RAFAQAT ALSO KNOWN AS RAFAQAT MAKARAM v. WILLIAM LAM

Citation

RAFAQAT ALSO KNOWN AS RAFAQAT MAKARAM v. WILLIAM LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL119/2012

Application dismissed because the applicant, having been given repeated and translated opportunities and the availability of legal assistance, failed to return the Questionnaire or provide particulars; the adjudicator was not obliged to hold an oral hearing, and on the merits even taking the applicant's case at its highest the CAT claim failed for absence of the state actor element under Art 1 CAT (thus dismissal stands irrespective of other contested element analyses).
5 Jan 2010

CH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL31/2009

The Convention does not require a State Party to start processing a torture claim at any particular time nor to grant extensions of stay; provided the claimant is not removed until after a fair screening that meets high standards, the Director's policies refusing to process claims while permission remains current and refusing routine extensions are lawful exercises of wide immigration discretion; the applicants' challenges fail and judicial review is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE MOHAMMAD SHAHID

RE BERMUDEZ EDNA LABADCHAN

SUROP VIOLETA LOPEZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER

RAFAQAT ALSO KNOWN AS RAFAQAT MAKARAM v. WILLIAM LAM

CH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION