Read the full judgment text of CACV 114/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 July 2019 before Hon Lam Acting CJHC and Andrew Chan J.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – leave to apply for judicial review – appeal – Indian national domestic helper who overstayed in Hong Kong and lodged non-refoulement protection claim based on fear of harm from mother-in-law – claim rejected by Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board – applicant sought judicial review – whether applicant entitled to apply for judicial review of Director's Decision without exceptional circumstances – whether lack of legal representation before Board renders process unfair – whether alleged lack of language assistance renders process unfair or discriminatory – whether Board's assessment of country of origin information materials is flawed – Court of Appeal upholds refusal of leave – appeal dismissed. Held, following Haider Zeeshan, that an applicant is not entitled to apply for judicial review of the Director's Decision in the absence of exceptional circumstances because the Board is the statutory decision-maker. Held, following Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq and the line of authority in Re Zunariyah, Re Zahid Abbas, Re Tariq Farhan and Re Lopchan Subash, that there is no absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of non-refoulement proceedings. Held, following Re Gurnishan Singh and Re Gurung Sagar, that the high standard of fairness does not require interpretation services to be provided at all times. Held that the Board gave adequate reasons for its assessment of the COI materials and, following Re Esmerez Maria Nieva Gelito, there was no basis for the application of state acquiescence or involvement. Appeal dismissed with leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal issues: Judicial review of the Director of Immigration's decision without exceptional circumstances · Lack of legal representation before the Board · Alleged lack of language assistance · Board's assessment of country of origin information
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 81 cases · Cites 15 cases