Read the full judgment text of CACV 21/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 May 2018 before Hon Lam VP and Barma JA.
Immigration – non-refoulement claim – BOR 2, BOR 3, torture and persecution risks – judicial review – refusal of leave – whether applicant was unable to submit additional facts and grounds for BOR 2 claim – whether Board erred in law or procedure – whether adverse credibility finding was open to the Board – appeal from Li J's refusal of leave – Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – appellant from India who overstayed after 14 days' permission to remain – claim based on alleged threats and framing by girlfriend's family including a police officer father – Director and Board rejected claim as not credible – applicant invited but failed to submit additional materials for BOR 2 assessment – held: Director entitled to proceed on same primary materials – held: no errors of law or procedure identified – held: evaluation of evidence is for primary decision-makers, not the court – held: no substantial ground for believing applicant would face real risk of ill-treatment meeting high threshold under Ubamaka v Secretary for Security (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743 – appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the Director/Board erred by not considering additional facts and grounds for the BOR 2 claim · Whether the Board's decision contained any errors of law or procedure · Whether the Board's adverse credibility finding and rejection of the non-refoulement claim was reasonably open to it
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 4361 cases · Cites 1 case