This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“ CFA ”). The applicant is a Pakistani national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ Board ”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“ CFA ”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“ Director ”) and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ Board ”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“ CFA ”). The applicant is a Nigerian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ Board ”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court
The applicant was charged with two counts of 'evasion of liability by deception' contrary to s.18B(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210). Count 1 related to a fraudulent promissory note for HK$150,000 issued to PW3 (Wu Qiang) as security for a diamond rough transaction, which was dishonoured when presented. Count 2 related to a fraudulent cheque for HK$2,263,541 issued to PW1 (Chan Siu Wan), dishonoured with the remark 'PAYMENT COUNTERMANDED BY THE DRAWER', after PW1 paid a total of HK$958,145.10 for purported gold bar purchases. The applicant claimed the underlying bank account had been terminated, that he had been kidnapped and robbed of his funds, and that he possessed other assets sufficient to repay. The trial judge rejected the kidnapping claim as fabricated, found the applicant never intended to repay, and convicted him on both counts applying the Ghosh dishonesty test.